MidCityBear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

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 once 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.

---

---

Washington was the best American president and it's not even close….


Lincoln is not even in the same category.

And while a political genius…he started a war that got 600,000+ people killed because he did not want to let the Southern State become independent.

The USA of course was founded on secession and independence from centralized power.

I would not say he was a particularly good President consider the mass bloodshed and destruction during his administration.

MidCityBear said:

---

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.

---

LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.

BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.

Redbrickbear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

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 once 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.

---

---

Washington was the best American president and it's not even close….


Lincoln is not even in the same category.

And while a political genius…he stated a war that got 600,000+ people killed because he did not want to let the Southern State become independent.

The USA of course was founded on secession and independence from centralized power.

I would not say he was a particularly good President consider the mass bloodshed and destruction during his administration.

---

Best Presidents in US history.

1. George Washington.
2. FDR
3. Teddy Roosevelt
4. Lincoln
5. Polk
6. Ronald Reagan
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. Madison
9. Monroe
10. John Adams

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 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.

---

The South desired independence. They "started" nothing. The Northern forces, composed to a large degree of first and second degree immigrants, invaded. It is what it is.

KaiBear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

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.

---

LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.

BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.

---

Jr. High, eh? Actually, the history teachers I had then did like me.

FWIW, I didn't say a person started the war. I said the "South." What leads to war is indeed often complex and certainly always involves multiple players over a period of time. But it is not a mystery that, in the case of the U.S. Civil War, one side started it and was motivated by a singular issue even if there were other grievances they held.

Five worst presidents? I have one singular best (Lincoln) one singular worst (who I will not mention). Beyond those two, I would place them more in categories than a straight ranking.

5 really bad: Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Nixon. Nixon was skilled but his flaws did him in.

5 really good: Washington, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, Truman. Of these, Jefferson was particularly flawed as a human being but, in contrast to Nixon, able to bracket them sufficiently to succeed as president.

KaiBear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

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.

---

LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.

BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.

---

Popping in because the question is interesting, my worst 5 Presidents are

5. LBJ - stole multiple Senator elections, installed the 'Great Society' which wasted Trillions of taxpayer dollars while making things worse for the poor, turned the Vietnam conflict from a small conflict to an endless and unwinnable meat grinder to kill draftees and turned the US Military into a corporate boondoggle factory

4.Biden - abandoned Middle East presence, spent Trillions on pet projects which helped only cronies, took bribes from multiple foreign powers, pursued blatantly racist policies

3. Obama - oversaw nationalization of Healthcare, deliberately weakened US Defense, weaponized the IRS and DOJ against political enemies

2. Buchanan - saw the Civil War coming, didn't do much of anything to prevent it

1. Wilson - introduced the Income Tax and the Sedition Act, hosted the KKK at the White House

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

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.

---

LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.

BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.

---

Popping in because the question is interesting, my worst 5 Presidents are

5. LBJ - stole multiple Senator elections, installed the 'Great Society' which wasted Trillions of taxpayer dollars while making things worse for the poor, turned the Vietnam conflict from a small conflict to an endless and unwinnable meat grinder to kill draftees and turned the US Military into a corporate boondoggle factory

4.Biden - abandoned Middle East presence, spent Trillions on pet projects which helped only cronies, took bribes from multiple foreign powers, pursued blatantly racist policies

3. Obama - oversaw nationalization of Healthcare, deliberately weakened US Defense, weaponized the IRS and DOJ against political enemies

2. Buchanan - saw the Civil War coming, didn't do much of anything to prevent it

1. Wilson - introduced the Income Tax and the Sedition Act, hosted the KKK at the White House

---

Agree with your list across the board .

Redbrickbear said:

---

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…straw man

---

MidCityBear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

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.

---

LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.

BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.

---

Jr. High, eh? Actually, the history teachers I had then did like me.

FWIW, I didn't say a person started the war. I said the "South." What leads to war is indeed often complex and certainly always involves multiple players over a period of time. But it is not a mystery that, in the case of the U.S. Civil War, one side started it and was motivated by a singular issue even if there were other grievances they held.

Five worst presidents? I have one singular best (Lincoln) one singular worst (who I will not mention). Beyond those two, I would place them more in categories than a straight ranking.

5 really bad: Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Nixon. Nixon was skilled but his flaws did him in.

5 really good: Washington, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, Truman. Of these, Jefferson was particularly flawed as a human being but, in contrast to Nixon, able to bracket them sufficiently to succeed as president.

---

Tyler should be on every bad list.

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 Every article of secession by southern states called for slavery. Again, you speak out of ignorance. Were you raised in the south? I was and I was not told the truth about the Civil War.

---

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 Every article of secession by southern states called for slavery. Again, you speak out of ignorance. Were you raised in the south? I was and I was not told the truth about the Civil War.

---

---

You wouldn't acknowledge truth if it slapped you on your face.

The Civil War was aggressively prosecuted by the North against the South to procure economic and political domination.

Utilizing the destruction of slavery and 'preservation of the Union ' as a propaganda tools to insure the willingness of northern men to be the required cannon fodder.

Frank Galvin said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

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.

---

LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.

BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.

---

Jr. High, eh? Actually, the history teachers I had then did like me.

FWIW, I didn't say a person started the war. I said the "South." What leads to war is indeed often complex and certainly always involves multiple players over a period of time. But it is not a mystery that, in the case of the U.S. Civil War, one side started it and was motivated by a singular issue even if there were other grievances they held.

Five worst presidents? I have one singular best (Lincoln) one singular worst (who I will not mention). Beyond those two, I would place them more in categories than a straight ranking.

5 really bad: Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Nixon. Nixon was skilled but his flaws did him in.

5 really good: Washington, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, Truman. Of these, Jefferson was particularly flawed as a human being but, in contrast to Nixon, able to bracket them sufficiently to succeed as president.

---

Tyler should be on every bad list.

---

And Polk should be near the top of every good list

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

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.

---

LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.

BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.

---

Jr. High, eh? Actually, the history teachers I had then did like me.

FWIW, I didn't say a person started the war. I said the "South." What leads to war is indeed often complex and certainly always involves multiple players over a period of time. But it is not a mystery that, in the case of the U.S. Civil War, one side started it and was motivated by a singular issue even if there were other grievances they held.

Five worst presidents? I have one singular best (Lincoln) one singular worst (who I will not mention). Beyond those two, I would place them more in categories than a straight ranking.

5 really bad: Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Nixon. Nixon was skilled but his flaws did him in.

5 really good: Washington, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, Truman. Of these, Jefferson was particularly flawed as a human being but, in contrast to Nixon, able to bracket them sufficiently to succeed as president.

---

Tyler should be on every bad list.

---

And Polk should be near the top of every good list

---

Based on results....absolutely.

However Polk was southern, quiet. withdrawn, and small of stature.


And US historians prefer their heroes to be cut from a different cloth .

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

---

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 Every article of secession by southern states called for slavery. Again, you speak out of ignorance. Were you raised in the south? I was and I was not told the truth about the Civil War.

---

---

"Called for slavery"? What does that mean....do you mean defended an already existing system? And I doubt you have read them all or you would know that they give other reasons than slavery...and every State does not mention slavery.

The States did not produce a common or standard set of documents.

And it should not be surprising that you're wrong again. Some States mentioned slavery as a reason (among others) for secession....other States did not.


[Florida - January 10, 1861
The Florida Ordinance of Secession does not contain the word slavery, any derivative, or allusion. It declares that "the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the Confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America…".

Alabama - January 11, 1861
The Alabama Ordinance of Secession alludes to slavery and only specifically mentions slavery in the form of inviting other "slaveholding" states to a convention of states "for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security." The document cites the election of a "sectional party" that was "avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama".

Louisiana - January 26, 1861
The Louisiana Ordinance of Secession does not mention slavery or any derivative or contain any allusions to slavery. The first declaration was that "the union now subsisting between Louisiana and other States, under the name of 'The United States of America' is hereby dissolved".

Texas - February 1, 1861
The Texas Declaration of Clauses begins with this:
"The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof…".
This sets the stage for the rest of the document which argues the United States is not abiding by that agreement. Significant in the discussion is slavery, but it is not the only Constitutional grievance. "They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance."


Four States would not secede until after Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteer troops "in order to suppress" the States "too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by law." Virginia was next, a few days after Sumter, and Tennessee was last, six months after South Carolina.

Virginia - April 17, 1861
The Virginia Ordinance of Secession is a legalistic document that only references other slaveholding States: the "Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States". There is no other reference to slavery.

Arkansas - May 6, 1861
The Arkansas Secession Ordinance essentially says that they warned the US Government that if coercion was used against States that had seceded, Arkansas would secede. Slavery is not mentioned.

Tennessee - June 8, 1861
The State of Tennessee unashamedly called on the Declaration of Independence as their basis for secession instead of arguing the legality of the same. Here is the title of the document.
"Declaration of Independence and Ordinance Dissolving the Federal Relations Between the State of Tennessee and the United States of America." There was not one mention of slavery.
Conclusion

It would be inaccurate to say that every Southern States' secession documents made it "crystal" clear that their separation from the Union was because of slavery is persistent. Some will say that allusions to slavery still count as slavery being the cause. Please refer to the beginning of the document. An allusion is not crystal clear, by definition, or in reality. The reality is that there were many Constitutional issues outside of slavery. Besides, even with the easier standard of accepting allusions to slavery, it only takes one not to allude to slavery for it to be a lie.]

Two questions

1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?
2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?

---

1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West

https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html

Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter

and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.

[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861

[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]

"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861

"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861

"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes

[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?

---

He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could block the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference.....

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.

But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open

You have to free them to kick them out...

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]

Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter

"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:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?

---

1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West

https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html

Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter

and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.

[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861

[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]

"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861

"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861

"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes

[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]

---

It's an interesting story, but your link even states that most historians agree it was the South firing on Ft Sumter that were the first shots of the war.

Whether anyone was killed or not is wholly irrelevant. If Japan failed to kill anyone in its attack of Pearl Harbor it was still a provocation and declaration of war. If China bombed one of our bases in Japan for 32 hours I don't think you would call that anything but an act of war even if no one died.

Lincoln had the right to resupply his own base that South Carolina ceded to the United States in 1805. The fact that the South was goaded into firing the first shots of the war and it played into Lincoln's advantage also doesn't change the facts that if the Confederacy wanted to peacefully secede they could have chosen to simply not fire at a military fort that they did not own.

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?

---

1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West

https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html

Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter

and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.

[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861

[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]

"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861

"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861

"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes

[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]

---

Whether anyone was killed or not is wholly irrelevant.

Lincoln had the right to resupply his own base that South Carolina ceded to the United States in 1805. The fact that the South was goaded into firing the first shots of the war and it played into Lincoln's advantage also doesn't change the facts that if the Confederacy wanted to peacefully secede they could have chosen to simply not fire at a military fort that they did not own.

---

If you are arguing it was a tactical mistake....you are probably correct.

Many in Lincoln's administration were hoping to provoke some kind of aggression to galvanize North opinion for the war.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy…~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861

"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861

Shooting at the Fort (even though it killed ZERO soldiers) played right into their hands

But holding the Fort was only a means to an end....holding the tax revenue was what was important

[April 4th, 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?]

"There is a strange similarity in the position of affairs at the present day to that which the Colonies occupied. Lord North asserted the right to collect the revenue, and insisted on collecting it by force. He sent troops to Boston harbor and to Charleston... he quartered troops in those towns. The result was collision & out of that collision came the separation of the Colonies from GB. The same thing is being attempted today. Not the law, not the civil magistrate, but troops are relied upon now to execute the laws."
- Davis, 1/10/1861

MidCityBear said:

---

The South started the Civil War. Over Slavery. Period. End of story.

My ancestors on both sides were either in Texas or the Deep South at the time of the Civil War. The men of age were Confederate Soldiers. At least one was severely wounded in battle.

I am thankful to my ancestors that I am alive. But I do not honor them if I glorify or justify or even minimize that which they were a part of. I do not honor them by falling for or promoting the same lies that conned them. I honor them by living in my time informed by their mistakes and working towards something better. I hope my descendants will honor me in the same way - not repeating my mistakes but learning from them.

There is much to admire about Washington. I bet he'd tell us Lincoln was the better man and present as well.

---

I've always gotten a kick out of mental midgets that end their pitiful comments with "end of story".

The fact that you do not honor or glorify your Confederate ancestors tells me all I need to know about you. If you refuse to honor them then step aside. I will do it for you.

You and your thought processes are a large part of what is wrong in America today.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?

---

He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.

But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open

You have to free them to kick them out

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]

Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter

"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)

---

I don't disagree that Lincoln was a racist by today's standards that wanted to send blacks back to Africa, this is well documented.

It's also well documented that the preservation of the Union was his number one priority, which he achieved, and is why he is regarded as one of the best presidents. He was also instrumental in ending slavery, which he was opposed to morally and politically, another reason he is widely liked as a president.

I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?

---

He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.

But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open

You have to free them to kick them out

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]

Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter

"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)

---

I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?

---

Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.

But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.

He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.

I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.

Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2

We can ever know know because of that conflict

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken


"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

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.

---

LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.

BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.

---

2. Buchanan - saw the Civil War coming, didn't do much of anything to prevent it

---

Could have done better no doubt.

But I don't believe he thought it had authorization to use force to prevent secession

[JAMES BUCHANAN'S MESSAGE, December 3, 1860:"Congress may possess many means of preserving the Union by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in its hand to preserve it by force."]

"some of the original Northern members of the Union under the Constitution had regarded themselves as entitled at any time to take back powers that they had delegated to the general government. The resolutions of the Hartford Convention are directly to this point."-Prof Channing

"Even after the southern States had acted upon the old-time theory & seceded, the North for a moment was not sure that they had acted beyond their right. It required the terrible exercise of prolonged war to impart to the national idea diffused vitality & authentic power." -Wilson

"What we of the North do not understand is that the Southmeaning thereby the brains of the Southinstead of regarding the states rights doctrine as a mere theory...held it as a sacred inheritance for which they were ready to die"-James Redpath (Abolitionist, 1891)

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?

---

He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.

But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open

You have to free them to kick them out

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]

Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter

"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)

---

I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?

---

Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.

But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.

He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.

I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.

Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2

We can ever know know because of that conflict

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken


"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.

---

Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.

Even if the constitution did allow secession, by your own admission the South fired the first shots that started the war.

Maybe the Union would've provoked the war eventually, but we will never know.

I believe the Union had the right to secure its own territory. The Confederacy started the war, lost the war, and agreed to the terms of being added back to the Union.

You can give me as many quotes as you want, but it doesn't change those key facts.

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?

---

He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.

But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open

You have to free them to kick them out

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]

Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter

"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)

---

I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?

---

Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.

But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.

He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.

I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.

Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2

We can ever know know because of that conflict

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken


"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.

---

Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.

.

---

But the shots at Sumter did not kill anyone

I suppose from a PR level the Southern States could have gone on letting Federal troops occupy Strategic forts in the South.

But I doubt that was tenable long term.

Regardless mass blood shed only began once Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern States "in rebellion"

That's also when he lost the support of Virginia and the upland Southern States who then also left the Union

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

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.

---

LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.

BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.

---

Jr. High, eh? Actually, the history teachers I had then did like me.

FWIW, I didn't say a person started the war. I said the "South." What leads to war is indeed often complex and certainly always involves multiple players over a period of time. But it is not a mystery that, in the case of the U.S. Civil War, one side started it and was motivated by a singular issue even if there were other grievances they held.

Five worst presidents? I have one singular best (Lincoln) one singular worst (who I will not mention). Beyond those two, I would place them more in categories than a straight ranking.

5 really bad: Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Nixon. Nixon was skilled but his flaws did him in.

5 really good: Washington, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, Truman. Of these, Jefferson was particularly flawed as a human being but, in contrast to Nixon, able to bracket them sufficiently to succeed as president.

---

Tyler should be on every bad list.

---

And Polk should be near the top of every good list

---

Based on results....absolutely.

However Polk was southern, quiet. withdrawn, and small of stature.


And US historians prefer their heroes to be cut from a different cloth .

---

Actually Polk rates highly among historians.

To the extent he doesn't rank higher it is more likely becuase of something admisrable-giving up the office after one term.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?

---

1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West

https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html

Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter

and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.

[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861

[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]

"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861

"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861

"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes

[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]

---

Whether anyone was killed or not is wholly irrelevant.

Lincoln had the right to resupply his own base that South Carolina ceded to the United States in 1805. The fact that the South was goaded into firing the first shots of the war and it played into Lincoln's advantage also doesn't change the facts that if the Confederacy wanted to peacefully secede they could have chosen to simply not fire at a military fort that they did not own.

---

If you are arguing it was a tactical mistake....you are probably correct.

Many in Lincoln's administration were hoping to provoke some kind of aggression to galvanize North opinion for the war.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy…~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861

"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861

Shooting at the Fort (even though it killed ZERO soldiers) played right into their hands

But holding the Fort was only a means to an end....holding the tax revenue was what was important

[April 4th, 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?]

"There is a strange similarity in the position of affairs at the present day to that which the Colonies occupied. Lord North asserted the right to collect the revenue, and insisted on collecting it by force. He sent troops to Boston harbor and to Charleston... he quartered troops in those towns. The result was collision & out of that collision came the separation of the Colonies from GB. The same thing is being attempted today. Not the law, not the civil magistrate, but troops are relied upon now to execute the laws."
- Davis, 1/10/1861

---

Why are you defending a racist south who wanted slavery?

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?

---

1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West

https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html

Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter

and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.

[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861

[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]

"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861

"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861

"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes

[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]

---

Whether anyone was killed or not is wholly irrelevant.

Lincoln had the right to resupply his own base that South Carolina ceded to the United States in 1805. The fact that the South was goaded into firing the first shots of the war and it played into Lincoln's advantage also doesn't change the facts that if the Confederacy wanted to peacefully secede they could have chosen to simply not fire at a military fort that they did not own.

---

If you are arguing it was a tactical mistake....you are probably correct.

Many in Lincoln's administration were hoping to provoke some kind of aggression to galvanize North opinion for the war.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy…~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861

"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861

Shooting at the Fort (even though it killed ZERO soldiers) played right into their hands

But holding the Fort was only a means to an end....holding the tax revenue was what was important

[April 4th, 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?]

"There is a strange similarity in the position of affairs at the present day to that which the Colonies occupied. Lord North asserted the right to collect the revenue, and insisted on collecting it by force. He sent troops to Boston harbor and to Charleston... he quartered troops in those towns. The result was collision & out of that collision came the separation of the Colonies from GB. The same thing is being attempted today. Not the law, not the civil magistrate, but troops are relied upon now to execute the laws."
- Davis, 1/10/1861

---

Why are you defending a racist south who wanted slavery?

---

lol why are you defending a racist north that did not care about freeing slaves?

Indeed why does a modern concept like "racism" have anything to do with Constitutional issues and issues of State sovereignty & national self determination?

"I, for one, am very much disposed to favor the colonization of such free negroes as are willing to go, in Central America...I want nothing to do, either with the free negro or the slave negro." -Sen. Trumbull (R-IL) 13th Amendment Author 8/7/1858

"But all attempts to settle two distinct and antagonistic races within the same territory is unnatural & destructive of social security. The Negro does not belong here."-General Weaver, USA

"We...are the white man's party...We are for free white men, & for making white labor respectable & honorable, which it can never be when negro labor is brought into competition with it."
-Lyman Trumbull (R-IL, 13th Amendment Author)
8/7/1858

"In the State where I live we do not like Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike…The whole people of the Northwestern States are opposed to having many Negroes among them.~ Republican Sen. John Sherman of Ohio, April 2, 1862.

"We are uncompromisingly opposed to all schemes the tendency of which is calculated to overrun the state of Indiana with a worthless and degraded negro population"
-Indiana General Assembly, 3/7//1863

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?

---

1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West

https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html

Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter

and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.

[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861

[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]

"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861

"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861

"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes

[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]

---

Whether anyone was killed or not is wholly irrelevant.

Lincoln had the right to resupply his own base that South Carolina ceded to the United States in 1805. The fact that the South was goaded into firing the first shots of the war and it played into Lincoln's advantage also doesn't change the facts that if the Confederacy wanted to peacefully secede they could have chosen to simply not fire at a military fort that they did not own.

---

If you are arguing it was a tactical mistake....you are probably correct.

Many in Lincoln's administration were hoping to provoke some kind of aggression to galvanize North opinion for the war.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy…~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861

"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861

Shooting at the Fort (even though it killed ZERO soldiers) played right into their hands

But holding the Fort was only a means to an end....holding the tax revenue was what was important

[April 4th, 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?]

"There is a strange similarity in the position of affairs at the present day to that which the Colonies occupied. Lord North asserted the right to collect the revenue, and insisted on collecting it by force. He sent troops to Boston harbor and to Charleston... he quartered troops in those towns. The result was collision & out of that collision came the separation of the Colonies from GB. The same thing is being attempted today. Not the law, not the civil magistrate, but troops are relied upon now to execute the laws."
- Davis, 1/10/1861

---

Why are you defending a racist south who wanted slavery?

---

I though you were against "simplistic narratives"

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?

---

He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.

But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open

You have to free them to kick them out

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]

Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter

"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)

---

I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?

---

Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.

But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.

He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.

I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.

Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2

We can ever know know because of that conflict

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken


"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.

---

Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.

.

---

But the shots at Sumter did not kill anyone

I suppose from a PR level the Southern States could have gone on letting Federal troops occupy Strategic forts in the South.

But I doubt that was tenable long term.

Regardless mass blood shed only began once Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern States "in rebellion"

That's also when he lost the support of Virginia and the upland Southern States who then also left the Union

---

Doesn't matter. It was an attack that started the war. Not to mention that there were deaths during the surrender ceremonies, and a confederate soldier blew himself up firing artillery.

Again, South Carolina ceded away fort Sumter in 1805. That fort belonged to the Union and the Union can do with it what they please. Firing at said fort is a declaration of war, a rebellion against said owner of the fort.

The South started the war and lost, and nothing you are providing disputes that.

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?

---

He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.

But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open

You have to free them to kick them out

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]

Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter

"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)

---

I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?

---

Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.

But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.

He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.

I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.

Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2

We can ever know know because of that conflict

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken


"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.

---

Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.

.

---

But the shots at Sumter did not kill anyone

I suppose from a PR level the Southern States could have gone on letting Federal troops occupy Strategic forts in the South.

But I doubt that was tenable long term.

Regardless mass blood shed only began once Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern States "in rebellion"

That's also when he lost the support of Virginia and the upland Southern States who then also left the Union

---

Doesn't matter. It was an attack that started the war.

The South started the war and lost, and nothing you are providing disputes that.

---

Not sure if lobbing some shells at a fort that did not kill any one is much of an act of war.

But in any case the CSA considered itself an independent nation and if you notice never once issued a formal declaration of war against the USA. It certainly considered USA military installations unacceptable

[Formal declarations of war are made by countries when at war with another sovereign nation. Neither side made any formal declaration of war in the Civil War. The Confederacy did not declare war on the U.S. - it did take control of federal property and demanded the evacuation of Fort Sumter. It made clear its intent to fight defensively - only to defend its sovereignty.

Following the surrender of Fort Sumter, Lincoln called for volunteers to put down what he termed a rebellion. Lincoln carefully worked to avoid any action that could be interpreted as a recognition of the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. Had he asked Congress to declare war on the Confederacy such a declaration would have recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign nation]

But you still have not explained why Lincoln would not just recall the troops occupying the Fort home and let the Southern States become independent?

What right to Linclon have to make war on the Southern States and their people?

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?

---

He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.

But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open

You have to free them to kick them out

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]

Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter

"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)

---

I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?

---

Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.

But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.

He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.

I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.

Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2

We can ever know know because of that conflict

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken


"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.

---

Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.

.

---

But the shots at Sumter did not kill anyone

I suppose from a PR level the Southern States could have gone on letting Federal troops occupy Strategic forts in the South.

But I doubt that was tenable long term.

Regardless mass blood shed only began once Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern States "in rebellion"

That's also when he lost the support of Virginia and the upland Southern States who then also left the Union

---

Again, South Carolina ceded away fort Sumter in 1805. That fort belonged to the Union and the Union can do with it what they please. Firing at said fort is a declaration of war, a rebellion against said owner of the fort.

---

Who was the Fort built to protect? If the people of South Carolina no longer feel a Federal Fort in their most important harbor is needed....why was it kept there?

[Before Lincoln held his hand up to be sworn in, almost half of the normal Treasury Revenue 'Expected' had been diverted to the CSA. Newspapers all over the country, in the hundreds and hundreds of stories brought this most serious issue to the readers - "Lincoln would not be able to run the Government, without some way of collecting the revenue going to Southern Ports." Politicians and newspapers advocated in February - the blockade of Southern ports, and making war on the seceded Southern government, due to "lost revenue." Lincoln took office March 4th, 1861 and on his way offered in several speeches, his solution to the number one issue - Lost Revenue. Lincoln offered on day one that he was going to collect revenue in Southern ports, or more commonly known as impost duties on foreign goods arriving in this country. We know them as tariffs. From March 4th to April 12th - President Lincoln day by day focused on collecting tariffs in the seceded ports. He was most concerned that any day, England and France would 'recognize' the new Confederacy, and that meant war, if he tried to coerce the seceded states back into the Union. This was the primary reason for the war: lost revenue and threat of international recognition of the CSA.]


"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States."
~ Senator Daniel Webster Massachusetts, US Senate, February 15, 1833


"When a proposition was made to authorize the Federal Government to make war upon a State, if necessary to the enforcement of the Federal laws, the convention which framed the Constitution expressly denied such power." -Congressman Henry C. Burnett, 2/26/1861

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?

---

He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.

But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open

You have to free them to kick them out

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]

Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter

"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)

---

I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?

---

Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.

But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.

He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.

I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.

Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2

We can ever know know because of that conflict

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken


"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.

---

Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.

.

---

But the shots at Sumter did not kill anyone

I suppose from a PR level the Southern States could have gone on letting Federal troops occupy Strategic forts in the South.

But I doubt that was tenable long term.

Regardless mass blood shed only began once Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern States "in rebellion"

That's also when he lost the support of Virginia and the upland Southern States who then also left the Union

---

Doesn't matter. It was an attack that started the war.

The South started the war and lost, and nothing you are providing disputes that.

---

Not sure if lobbing some shells at a fort that did not kill any one is much of an act of war.

But in any case the CSA considered itself an independent nation and if you notice never once issued a formal declaration of war against the USA. It certainly considered USA military installations unacceptable

[Formal declarations of war are made by countries when at war with another sovereign nation. Neither side made any formal declaration of war in the Civil War. The Confederacy did not declare war on the U.S. - it did take control of federal property and demanded the evacuation of Fort Sumter. It made clear its intent to fight defensively - only to defend its sovereignty.

Following the surrender of Fort Sumter, Lincoln called for volunteers to put down what he termed a rebellion. Lincoln carefully worked to avoid any action that could be interpreted as a recognition of the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. Had he asked Congress to declare war on the Confederacy such a declaration would have recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign nation]

But you still have not explained why Lincoln would not just recall the troops occupying the Fort home and let the Southern States become independent?

What right to Linclon have to make war on the Southern States and their people?

---

There is no shot that you think that any other nation bombing us for 32 hours is not an act of war, you know you don't believe that.

Why should Lincoln have to recall troops from his own fort? It's his right as commander-in-chief of the Union, the sole owner of the fort.