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

---

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

---

The fort was ceded to the United states because ironically South Carolina found it had little military value and didn't feel like paying to maintain it. Why the fort was originally built has no relevance at all on what the owner is allowed to do with it lol.

If a commercial real estate group buys an office building, but wants to turn it into a mall does the original owner have any say on what the group does with it? Of course not.

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

---

Maryland and Missouri would have very likely left the Union except for the persuasive presence of Union bayonets.



Another little snippet of history usually ignored by historians in their quest to appeal to the current woke crowd.

KaiBear 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

---

Maryland and Missouri would have very likely left the Union except for the persuasive presence of Union bayonets.



Another little snippet of history usually ignored by historians in their quest to appeal to the current woke crowd.

---

You have to wonder about Delaware and Kentucky as well

Bestweekeverr said:

---

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

---

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

---

The fort was ceded to the United states because ironically South Carolina found it had little military value and didn't feel like paying to maintain it. Why the fort was originally built has no relevance at all on what the owner is allowed to do with it lol.

If a commercial real estate group buys an office building, but wants to turn it into a mall does the original owner have any say on what the group does with it? Of course not.

---

You will certainly get no argument from me that the Federal government did not own the fort.

But think of all the British government property the Patriots seized in 1776…..

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Two questions

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

---

The Confederates, in 34 hours, won the first battle of the War of Northern Aggression.

The Confederates also won the final battle of the War of Northern Aggression by trouncing Union forces in the Battle of Palmito Ranch. Colonel Rip Ford chased the Yankees 7 miles before turning back. Body count: Union 117 dead, Confederates 6 dead.


Lincoln fought for the 13th Amendment because it was a WAR MEASURE, not a freedom of the slaves measure.

Lincoln's own Secretary of State said. "We have just freed slaves in territories that we do not control and left them in slavery in territories we do control."

Lincoln was running through generals and generals while getting his ass kicked by Confederates of the small Army of Northern Virginia. Lincoln and his advisors had decided that a Union proclamation freeing slaves in Southern territories would produce a slave rebellion and Lee's invinvible army would run home to protect their wives and children. Wrong!

The misrepresentation of the War of Northern Aggression as Lincoln's war to free slaves is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile with Lincoln's view of blacks. Lincoln said, "I have said that the seperation of the races is the only perfect preventitive of amalgamation [of the white & black races]....Such seperation....must be affected by colonization" [sending blacks to Liberia or Central America] "Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and....favorable...to....our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime."

"I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people."

The Great Emancipator??????

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear 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

---

Maryland and Missouri would have very likely left the Union except for the persuasive presence of Union bayonets.



Another little snippet of history usually ignored by historians in their quest to appeal to the current woke crowd.

---

You have to wonder about Delaware and Kentucky as well

---

Never read anything about Delaware.

But Kentucky was Unionist.

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear 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

---

Maryland and Missouri would have very likely left the Union except for the persuasive presence of Union bayonets.



Another little snippet of history usually ignored by historians in their quest to appeal to the current woke crowd.

---

You have to wonder about Delaware and Kentucky as well

---

Never read anything about Delaware.

But Kentucky was Unionist.

---

Because of Louisville and its population centers

But there was a Confederate government in Bowling Green the entirely of the war. Western Kentucky and southern Kentucky were especially hot beds resistance to the Union

[As a border state, Kentucky was largely pro-slavery but had an economy tied as much to the North as to the South. State government officials tried to keep Kentucky neutral, hoping to play a lead role in compromise efforts between the Union and the Confederacy, but that stance failed to satisfy supporters of both sides, all of whom considered the state's backing crucial to victory.
President Abraham Lincoln is reported to have once remarked, "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky." Kentucky did side with Lincoln, officially aligning itself with the Union in 1861. But the conflicted loyalties of Kentucky's citizens continued to impact the state's role in the Civil War. When forced to choose between North and South, Kentuckians made the choice as individuals. Many men opted to fight for the Confederate army, where a great number of them rose to high ranks.]

Kentucky provided some famously hard flighting CSA units

Thee University said:

---

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.

---

Note that I didn't say I didn't honor them. I said I honor them by not repeating their mistakes. And I have others who came before them as well as after them but before me who I very much honor by trying to emulate what all they stood for (including veterans of wars where they fought for the U.S., not against the U.S.).

MidCityBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

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.

---

Note that I didn't say I didn't honor them. I said I honor them by not repeating their mistakes...

---

What mistakes? Voting for independence?

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear 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

---

Maryland and Missouri would have very likely left the Union except for the persuasive presence of Union bayonets.



Another little snippet of history usually ignored by historians in their quest to appeal to the current woke crowd.

---

You have to wonder about Delaware and Kentucky as well

---

Never read anything about Delaware.

But Kentucky was Unionist.

---

Because of Louisville and its population centers

But there was a Confederate government in Bowling Green the entirely of the war. Western Kentucky and southern Kentucky were especially hot beds resistance to the Union

[As a border state, Kentucky was largely pro-slavery but had an economy tied as much to the North as to the South. State government officials tried to keep Kentucky neutral, hoping to play a lead role in compromise efforts between the Union and the Confederacy, but that stance failed to satisfy supporters of both sides, all of whom considered the state's backing crucial to victory.
President Abraham Lincoln is reported to have once remarked, "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky." Kentucky did side with Lincoln, officially aligning itself with the Union in 1861. But the conflicted loyalties of Kentucky's citizens continued to impact the state's role in the Civil War. When forced to choose between North and South, Kentuckians made the choice as individuals. Many men opted to fight for the Confederate army, where a great number of them rose to high ranks.]

Kentucky provided some famously hard flighting CSA units

---

Very informative.

Thank you.


Thought Kentucky sent more men into the Union army than the Confederate.

But could be mistaken.


In any case I would have been one of the many. ( both North and South ) who opted to go West instead .

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear 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

---

Maryland and Missouri would have very likely left the Union except for the persuasive presence of Union bayonets.



Another little snippet of history usually ignored by historians in their quest to appeal to the current woke crowd.

---

You have to wonder about Delaware and Kentucky as well

---

Never read anything about Delaware.

But Kentucky was Unionist.

---

Because of Louisville and its population centers

But there was a Confederate government in Bowling Green the entirely of the war. Western Kentucky and southern Kentucky were especially hot beds resistance to the Union

[As a border state, Kentucky was largely pro-slavery but had an economy tied as much to the North as to the South. State government officials tried to keep Kentucky neutral, hoping to play a lead role in compromise efforts between the Union and the Confederacy, but that stance failed to satisfy supporters of both sides, all of whom considered the state's backing crucial to victory.
President Abraham Lincoln is reported to have once remarked, "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky." Kentucky did side with Lincoln, officially aligning itself with the Union in 1861. But the conflicted loyalties of Kentucky's citizens continued to impact the state's role in the Civil War. When forced to choose between North and South, Kentuckians made the choice as individuals. Many men opted to fight for the Confederate army, where a great number of them rose to high ranks.]

Kentucky provided some famously hard flighting CSA units

---

Very informative.

Thank you.


Thought Kentucky sent more men into the Union army than the Confederate.

---

They did.

About 100,000 fought for the Union vs 50,000 for the CSA

Redbrickbear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

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.

---

Note that I didn't say I didn't honor them. I said I honor them by not repeating their mistakes...

---

What mistakes? Voting for independence?

---

Just to be clear, you are equating the choice to serve the Confederacy as nothing more than a vote for independence?

MidCityBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

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.

---

Note that I didn't say I didn't honor them. I said I honor them by not repeating their mistakes...

---

What mistakes? Voting for independence?

---

Just to be clear, you are equating the choice to serve the Confederacy as nothing more than a vote for independence?

---

How is South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia voting to leave the United Kingdom in 1776 any different from those same States voting to leave the United States in 1861?

How is Texas deciding to break off from the United Mexican States in 1836 different fundamentally from Texas deciding to break off from the United States of America a few decades later?

Redbrickbear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

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.

---

Note that I didn't say I didn't honor them. I said I honor them by not repeating their mistakes...

---

What mistakes? Voting for independence?

---

Just to be clear, you are equating the choice to serve the Confederacy as nothing more than a vote for independence?

---

How is South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia voting to leave the United Kingdom in 1776 any different from those same States voting to leave the United States in 1861?

How is Texas deciding to break off from the United Mexican States in 1836 different fundamentally from Texas deciding to break off from the United States of America a few decades later?

---

The difference is the "why" not the "what", especially in comparison to the American Revolution.

MidCityBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

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.

---

Note that I didn't say I didn't honor them. I said I honor them by not repeating their mistakes...

---

What mistakes? Voting for independence?

---

Just to be clear, you are equating the choice to serve the Confederacy as nothing more than a vote for independence?

---

How is South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia voting to leave the United Kingdom in 1776 any different from those same States voting to leave the United States in 1861?

How is Texas deciding to break off from the United Mexican States in 1836 different fundamentally from Texas deciding to break off from the United States of America a few decades later?

---

The difference is the "why" not the "what", especially in comparison to the American Revolution.

---

The new fad in American history is to claim the Founding Fathers broke off from the UK to protect slavery.

People are now making that claim about the Texas revolution against Mexico.

Looks look like every secessionist movement in American history is about to get the 1861 treatment.

Attempting to invalidate the right of people to choose their own government by accusing them of "muh racism"

Understanding history requires, among other things, holding ideas and notions in tension.

You cannot extract slavery from American history or segregation from American history, including the American Revolution. But the American revolution was not solely about slavery. Southern secession was. There are reasons to take pride in the American Revolution while acknowledging the dark side. There is no reason to take pride in Southern secession.

Similarly, although Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, there are other reasons to acknowledge their great contributions to American history, while not ignoring their evil. Those whose historical contributions are primarily or exclusively about the Southern succession/slavery do not deserve to be celebrated or honored.

Not every group that justifies trying to get their way by claiming they merely want their independence is in the right.

MidCityBear said:

---

Understanding history requires, among other things, holding ideas and notions in tension.

You cannot extract slavery from American history or segregation from American history, including the American Revolution. But the American revolution was not solely about slavery. Southern secession was. There are reasons to take pride in the American Revolution while acknowledging the dark side. There is no moral/ethical/honorable reason to take pride in Southern secession.

Similarly, although Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, there are other reasons to acknowledge their great contributions to American history, while not ignoring their evil. Those whose historical contributions are primarily or exclusively about the Southern secession/slavery do not deserve to be celebrated or honored.

Not every group that justifies trying to get their way by claiming they merely want their independence is in the right.

---

MidCityBear said:

---

Understanding history requires, among other things, holding ideas and notions in tension.

You cannot extract slavery from American history or segregation from American history, including the American Revolution. But the American revolution was not solely about slavery. Southern secession was. There are reasons to take pride in the American Revolution while acknowledging the dark side. There is no reason to take pride in Southern secession.

Similarly, although Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, there are other reasons to acknowledge their great contributions to American history, while not ignoring their evil. Those whose historical contributions are primarily or exclusively about the Southern succession/slavery do not deserve to be celebrated or honored.

Not every group that justifies trying to get their way by claiming they merely want their independence is in the right.

---

You are merely attempting to utilize your personal biases as historical fact.

Which most historians, and their publishers do as well.
As a result history is always in flux .

The History of Texas as written in 1890 is far different than the History of Texas written today.

Although both authors probably thought their manuscripts were correct ……. one author is dead …..as well as his entire readership.


Or as might late father in law would repeatedly ask ……

" Who wrote that book…..God ? "

We can all be confident that we have biased perspectives on just about everything.. Bias is absolutely intertwined with my views on American history. That does not mean my perspective is wrong. It is certainly not uninformed. It does mean one should maintain a degree of humility and open to other ideas.

Likewise, arguments defending the Southern succession or minimizing the impact of slavery and racism on American history are also "informed." Unfortunately, it is a matter of being badly informed. It has been emphatically refuted by generations of historians, covering a broad spectrum of world views and political leanings.

Some things can be known and should be understood as fact.. The Earth is not flat. There is such a thing as gravity. We live on a tiny planet that is in a universe filled with planets and stars. Slavery was the unambiguously singular cause of the US Civil War. Millions of Jews perished in the Holocaust.

Everyone of those statements is a matter of bias on my part but also true.

MidCityBear said:

---

Understanding history requires, among other things, holding ideas and notions in tension.

But the American revolution was not solely about slavery. Southern secession was.

..There is no reason to take pride in Southern secession.

Similarly, although Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, there are other reasons to acknowledge their great contributions to American history, while not ignoring their evil .

---

1. Southern secession was not solely about slavery

2. There is absolutely a reason to take pride in Southern secession. Anytime people bravely stake their claim to nationhood and independence is something to acknowledge with pride.

Especially when they heroically fight a brutal tough war against a superior enemy intent on their conquest and political subjugation.

3. Washington and Jefferson were not evil at all…to the extent they took part in an unfair labor system it's barely a foot note in their story.

Those who would try to make it central to their story are suspect a best…nefarious more likely…and ignore than if slavery can now be universally statd to be evil then we must never forget that all humans stand guilty of the practice…it was practiced by every people group on earth at one time or another.

Redbrickbear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

Understanding history requires, among other things, holding ideas and notions in tension.

But the American revolution was not solely about slavery. Southern secession was.

..There is no reason to take pride in Southern secession.

Similarly, although Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, there are other reasons to acknowledge their great contributions to American history, while not ignoring their evil .

---

1. Southern secession was not solely about slavery

2. There is absolutely a reason to take pride in Southern secession. Anytime people bravely stake their claim to nationhood and independence is something to acknowledge with pride.

Especially when they heroically fight a brutal tough war against a superior enemy intent on their conquest and political subjugation.

3. Washington and Jefferson were not evil at all…to the extent they took part in an unfair labor system it's barely a foot note in their story.

Those who would try to make it central to their story are suspect a best…nefarious more likely…and ignore than if slavery can now be universally statd to be evil then we must never forget that all humans stand guilty of the practice…it was practiced by every people group on earth at one time or another.

---

Slavery is evil no matter who practiced it or when they did so. It is astounding that anyone would argue otherwise.

MidCityBear said:

---

Note that I didn't say I didn't honor them. I said I honor them by not repeating their mistakes. And I have others who came before them as well as after them but before me who I very much honor by trying to emulate what all they stood for (including veterans of wars where they fought for the U.S., not against the U.S.).

---

Mistakes? Your ancestors did not believe they were making a mistake.

You bought your junior high teacher's explanation of the Civil War (Northern Aggression) and you are unable to admit there is absolute evidence Lincoln used slavery as a last ditch pawn.

Don't forget, every man who fought in the War of Northern Aggression is indeed a VETERAN!!!

MidCityBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

Understanding history requires, among other things, holding ideas and notions in tension.

But the American revolution was not solely about slavery. Southern secession was.

..There is no reason to take pride in Southern secession.

Similarly, although Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, there are other reasons to acknowledge their great contributions to American history, while not ignoring their evil .

---

1. Southern secession was not solely about slavery

2. There is absolutely a reason to take pride in Southern secession. Anytime people bravely stake their claim to nationhood and independence is something to acknowledge with pride.

Especially when they heroically fight a brutal tough war against a superior enemy intent on their conquest and political subjugation.

3. Washington and Jefferson were not evil at all…to the extent they took part in an unfair labor system it's barely a foot note in their story.

Those who would try to make it central to their story are suspect a best…nefarious more likely…and ignore than if slavery can now be universally statd to be evil then we must never forget that all humans stand guilty of the practice…it was practiced by every people group on earth at one time or another.

---

Slavery is evil no matter who practiced it or when they did so. It is astounding that anyone would argue otherwise.

---

Simplistic response.

Firebombing civilians is evil.
Unleashing biological weapons is evil.
Murdering babies in the womb is evil .

But there are always the opposing viewpoints .
Usually guided by economics.

Slavery was no different.


Following the British example of compensation would have eventually ended slavery as the institution was already losing profitability in 1860.

MidCityBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

MidCityBear said:

---

Understanding history requires, among other things, holding ideas and notions in tension.

But the American revolution was not solely about slavery. Southern secession was.

..There is no reason to take pride in Southern secession.

Similarly, although Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, there are other reasons to acknowledge their great contributions to American history, while not ignoring their evil .

---

1. Southern secession was not solely about slavery

2. There is absolutely a reason to take pride in Southern secession. Anytime people bravely stake their claim to nationhood and independence is something to acknowledge with pride.

Especially when they heroically fight a brutal tough war against a superior enemy intent on their conquest and political subjugation.

3. Washington and Jefferson were not evil at all…to the extent they took part in an unfair labor system it's barely a foot note in their story.

Those who would try to make it central to their story are suspect a best…nefarious more likely…and ignore than if slavery can now be universally statd to be evil then we must never forget that all humans stand guilty of the practice…it was practiced by every people group on earth at one time or another.

---

Slavery is evil no matter who practiced it or when they did so. It is astounding that anyone would argue otherwise.

---

To the extent you are using it as a modern morally weapon to attack George Washington and Thomas Jefferson I don't think you are interested in a deep moral discussion of a unfair labor practice that has been with humans since the dawn of time…..

Was every civilization and very people in history "evil" then? How light is the air up there on your perch as supreme judge of all humanity and human history?

The hubris is astounding…

So, here's the thing.

Everyone of us walking on the planet today are descended from all manner of folks. If we could uncover all the facts of our lineage, we'd all find scalawags and heroes, slavers and enslaved, cowards and heroes, etc. it goes without saying that in the final analysis, it's not what they did, it's what we do.

I'm pretty fortunate to have had parents and grandparents that I deeply admire and unabashedly believe to be worthy of such admiration. They weren't perfect. They did shape more than anyone else my sense of right and wrong. Three of them had a deep and abiding love of history and I inherited that passion. They aren't here to agree or disagree with me, but I think we'd have some common ground. They were obviously closer in proximity to our Confederate ancestors than I was. In fact, for my grandparents, those Confederates were their grandparents. I am fortunate to have not lived in the Civil War era and to have the opportunity to learn from it. Both directly and indirectly, my grandparents taught me not to make the same mistakes their grandparents made. Lord knows I make more than enough of my own without having to repeat the errors of previous generations when we absolutely should know better and they, at some level, they should have as well. And did.

We only have to pay the price for the sins of our ancestors if we repeat them. If we learn from their sins, maybe in some small way we contribute to their redemption.

Washington and Jefferson knew slavery was wrong. In some small way, if we work to expand the full meaning of the best values they embedded in the foundational fabric of this country, we both honor them and contribute to their redemption as well.

I know some of you are convinced you contain an enlightened knowledge of the "true" history and I only a "junior high" version of it. Maybe so. I have some evidence and credentials to suggest otherwise, but I trust that you are sincere in your assessment of what I have offered.

I hope that for any of us, our understanding of history, politics, theology and any other topic that lends itself to subjectivity but that has tremendous power to impact the lives of others, will lead us to insights and conclusions that expand our sense of just who is our neighbor rather than limit it. From the perspective of history, may we celebrate and emulate those worthy of it, learn from those who were not, and discern the good and the bad in those who (like most of us) were something of a mixed bag. And, knowing that we all have biases, may we understand the history of ideas and connect the dots between our resources for understanding and the agendas they represent.

MidCityBear said:

---

Slavery is evil no matter who practiced it or when they did so. It is astounding that anyone would argue otherwise.

---

I think the point here is that defending the Confederacy does not automatically equate to a defense of slavery. There were free Asians in Dixie who put on the gray uniform to defend their adopted states. Christopher and Stephen Bunker, two such men, joined the 37th Virginia Cavalry. Their father (Chinese), a married local girl, owned farms and yes - owned slaves to work those farms. Free blacks owned slaves.

Modern leftists like to smear the Confederacy as the root of all evil because of racism and slavery to advance their current political objectives, but the truth was more complex than their soundbites.

Let's also not forget that the North did not have large scale cash crop slavery because they did not have the climate for it….not because of moral considerations.

If Massachusetts had the climate of Mississippi they would have…Lincoln said as much

[let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Let's also not forget that the North did not have large scale cash crop slavery because they did not have the climate for it….not because of moral considerations.

If Massachusetts had the climate of Mississippi they would have…Lincoln said as much

[let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up.]

---

I think that claim misses the character and history of some states. I could see New York, for example, using slaves if the climate suited it, but 18th-19th Century Massachusetts was very focused on activism and individual rights. New Hampshire and Vermont were also unique in their moral/religious perspectives, which drove government positions.

MidCityBear said:

---

Slavery was the unambiguously singular cause of the US Civil War.

Millions of Jews perished in the Holocaust.

Everyone of those statements is a matter of bias on my part but also true.

---

Bull*****

I'll bet you are a flaming liberal incapable of taking off the blinders some "educated" professor or high school teacher strapped on your head years ago. I admit that slavery was a small part of the total reasoning for war. I admit that slavery was horrific.

On March 2, 1861, in a futile attempt to prevent the secession of the slaveholding states, Congress proposed, and sent to the states for ratification, a Constitutional Amendment designed to protect slavery in the states where it existed. If the Republicans invaded the South to overthrow slavery, why did they pass a Constitutional Amendment that would have preserved slavery forever?

IF THE SOUTH WENT TO WAR IN DEFENSE OF SLAVERY, WHY DID THE SOUTH NOT RATIFY THE CORWIN AMENDMENT AND REMAIN IN THE UNION?

These questions have been evaded by dishonest historians ever since the end of the war!

Union cowards like Sherman & Sheridan targeted not only Southern armies but civilians and their shelter and food supplies. As the war came to an end the devastated condition of the South was creating Northern sympathy, something the extreme Republicans pushing more punishment and humiliation under their "reconstruction" policy did not want. The Republicans saw the need to turn the explanation of the war into a moral project to free the slaves from the iniquity of white Southerners. Reconstruction went beyond the South's defeat and inflicted brutal humiliation. This required creation of an immoral image of the South fighting to keep people in slavery. The victors write the histories.

Can you not read all of the speeches and comments Lincoln made? In his inaugural address Lincoln said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Each Confederate state issued their own "Articles of Secession" when they left the Union. Four, including Texas, issued an additional "Declaration of Causes." While in varying degrees these documents do mention other grievances, one cannot examine these documents and reasonably conclude that there would have been secession or war without the matter of slavery.

That the South was wrong does not mean that the North was pure. There was no shortage of racism in the North.

At the beginning of the war, Lincoln was primarily concerned about the preservation of the Union. He also knew that Northern support for the war would largely evaporate if the masses thought they were primarily fighting and sacrificing to free the slaves. He was racist himself.

By the end of the war, Lincoln evolved to hold a different perspective about the necessity and centrality of ending slavery once and for all. I have read Lincoln's first inaugural address. I have also read his second one.

Unlike Lincoln, the leaders of the Confederacy did not evolve on the issue of race or slavery as the war progressed.

The self-serving "Lost Cause" BS was concocted by Lee and others a few years after the war and has contributed mightily (but not exclusively) to segregation and other forms of racism in this country as well as the fact that, as evidenced by this thread, our country still isn't over it 159 years later. We still study and debate the World Wars of the 20th Century, but we don't hold on to them the way we do the Civil War.

There were plenty of bad actors from the North. Northern politicians and the Republican Party sold out Black citizens a decade after the war ended. No national political figure did much of anything on behalf of Black Americans until Truman integrated the military after WWII.

There is much to celebrate about the South outside of slavery and segregation and the Civil War. Ironically, unless it was different in East Texas, most Texans were far more emotionally invested in and connected to one another by virtue of being Texan until the past few decades. People from South Carolina or Georgia or Alabama see themselves more as Southerners than they see themselves as South Carolinians or Georgians or Alabamians. We Texans used to just see ourselves as Texans. Getting all wrapped up on Lost Cause crap is a product of present day politics, not an homage to the past.

MidCityBear said:

---

Each Confederate state issued their own "Articles of Secession" when they left the Union. Four, including Texas, issued an additional "Declaration of Causes." While in varying degrees these documents do mention other grievances, one cannot examine these documents and reasonably conclude that there would have been secession or war without the matter of slavery.

That the South was wrong does not mean that the North was pure. There was no shortage of racism in the North.

At the beginning of the war, Lincoln was primarily concerned about the preservation of the Union. He also knew that Northern support for the war would largely evaporate if the masses thought they were primarily fighting and sacrificing to free the slaves. He was racist himself.

By the end of the war, Lincoln evolved to hold a different perspective about the necessity and centrality of ending slavery once and for all. I have read Lincoln's first inaugural address. I have also read his second one.

Unlike Lincoln, the leaders of the Confederacy did not evolve on the issue of race or slavery as the war progressed.

The self-serving "Lost Cause" BS was concocted by Lee and others a few years after the war and has contributed mightily (but not exclusively) to segregation and other forms of racism in this country as well as the fact that, as evidenced by this thread, our country still isn't over it 159 years later. We still study and debate the World Wars of the 20th Century, but we don't hold on to them the way we do the Civil War.

There were plenty of bad actors from the North. Northern politicians and the Republican Party sold out Black citizens a decade after the war ended. No national political figure did much of anything on behalf of Black Americans until Truman integrated the military after WWII.

There is much to celebrate about the South outside of slavery and segregation and the Civil War. Ironically, unless it was different in East Texas, most Texans were far more emotionally invested in and connected to one another by virtue of being Texan until the past few decades. People from South Carolina or Georgia or Alabama see themselves more as Southerners than they see themselves as South Carolinians or Georgians or Alabamians. We Texans used to just see ourselves as Texans. Getting all wrapped up on Lost Cause crap is a product of present day politics, not an homage to the past.

---

A. Slaves were extremely valuable. In 1860 a healthy male field hand was worth up to $ 1000. To put this in perspective a skilled white carpenter was lucky to make 4 dollars a DAY.
B. Great Britain eliminated their slavery issue by COMPENSATING their slave owners the cost of their slaves.
C. Without compensation the southern economy would have been destroyed. The planter class wiped out. A fact clearly understood by Northern industrialists and politicians.
D. The North vehemently opposed compensation.
E. In addition slavery was impractical in the western regions of the US. As a result no additional slave states were going to be admitted to the union. Therefore the balance of power in the Senate would irrevocably be in the hands of the North. Due to their larger population the North already had control of the House.
F. Without compensation the South's economic and political future within the union were dismal.
G. Unlike the fantasy presented in Gone With The Wind; the wealthy planter class in the South did not want a wsr with North as they often hsd business connections in the north and knew the South stood little chance of winning without the aid of France and England.

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

of course Northerners were racist, but those white boys and later those black boys fault do in slavery. It may not have been in your thoughts or minds and hearts, but the result was the end of slavery.

Waco1947 said:

---

of course Northerners were racist, but those white boys and later those black boys fault do in slavery. It may not have been in your thoughts or minds and hearts, but the result was the end of slavery.

---

Can somebody please deciher this for me? I want to respond but I'm confused as to what he is trying to say.

"fault do in slavery"?