Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lincoln killed 800,000 Americans for no good reason.
He also started the movement to increase the power of the federal government. He's the worst president in our history by a wide margin. Even worse than Obama.
I know it pains you and a handful of other conservatives that the South wasn't allowed to secede, make war on the United States, and retain slavery with impunity. Nevertheless, our greatest President preserved the Union, which was his constitutional duty, and ended slavery, which was his moral obligation.
I know it pains you and a handful of other conservatives that the South wasn't allowed to secede, make war on the United States, and retain slavery with impunity. Nevertheless, our greatest President preserved the Union, which was his constitutional duty, and ended slavery, which was his moral obligation.
Yes, I wonder exactly how RoadKing and others propose Lincoln handle the secession of the South. The South, who refused to negotiate and placed profit or people.
I know it pains you and a handful of other conservatives that the South wasn't allowed to secede, make war on the United States, and retain slavery with impunity. Nevertheless, our greatest President preserved the Union, which was his constitutional duty, and ended slavery, which was his moral obligation.
States do have a right to secede. It's not prohibited and is thus reserved under the 10th Amendment.
The problem with the Confederate States was they seceded not to protect freedom but slavery. Ending slavery was worth a war, but the precedent of the government threatening war against secession was not good.
For 110 years, the numbers stood as gospel: 618,222 men died in the Civil War, 360,222 from the North and 258,000 from the South — by far the greatest toll of any war in American history.
But new research shows that the numbers were far too low.
By combing through newly digitized census data from the 19th century, J. David Hacker, a demographic historian from Binghamton University in New York, has recalculated the death toll and increased it by more than 20 percent — to 750,000.
The new figure is already winning acceptance from scholars. Civil War History, the journal that published Dr. Hacker’s paper, called it “among the most consequential pieces ever to appear†in its pages. And a pre-eminent authority on the era, Eric Foner, a historian at Columbia University, said:
“It even further elevates the significance of the Civil War and makes a dramatic statement about how the war is a central moment in American history. It helps you understand, particularly in the South with a much smaller population, what a devastating experience this was.â€
States do have a right to secede. It's not prohibited and is thus reserved under the 10th Amendment.
The problem with the Confederate States was they seceded not to protect freedom but slavery. Ending slavery was worth a war, but the precedent of the government threatening war against secession was not good.
A. No. This was a complex question at the time, with able legal minds to be found arguing both sides, but the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined after the war that secession had been illegal. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
For 110 years, the numbers stood as gospel: 618,222 men died in the Civil War, 360,222 from the North and 258,000 from the South — by far the greatest toll of any war in American history.
But new research shows that the numbers were far too low.
By combing through newly digitized census data from the 19th century, J. David Hacker, a demographic historian from Binghamton University in New York, has recalculated the death toll and increased it by more than 20 percent — to 750,000.
The new figure is already winning acceptance from scholars. Civil War History, the journal that published Dr. Hacker’s paper, called it “among the most consequential pieces ever to appear†in its pages. And a pre-eminent authority on the era, Eric Foner, a historian at Columbia University, said:
“It even further elevates the significance of the Civil War and makes a dramatic statement about how the war is a central moment in American history. It helps you understand, particularly in the South with a much smaller population, what a devastating experience this was.â€
TX v. White's secession commentary is non-binding dicta, written by a rabidly anti-secession justice appointed by Lincoln. Notably it doesn't even address the Constitution or the Tenth Amendment but his own very loose version of American history. It's essentially just his opinion.
He also wrote the following in a private letter once:
"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason"
Moreover, the feds tried to have things both ways: Chase argued the states never left the union, but Congress treated them as foreign lands and occupied them (Reconstruction).
Yes, I wonder exactly how RoadKing and others propose Lincoln handle the secession of the South. The South, who refused to negotiate and placed profit or people.
Pretty easy, just let them go. The agri south and industrial north would have made great trade partners.
I wonder why people think all the lives and resources destroyed were worth it to preserve a voluntary union?
Oh I know, the winner writes the history books.
TX v. White's secession commentary is non-binding dicta, written by a rabidly anti-secession justice appointed by Lincoln. Notably it doesn't even address the Constitution or the Tenth Amendment but his own very loose version of American history. It's essentially just his opinion.
He also wrote the following in a private letter once:
"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason"
Moreover, the feds tried to have things both ways: Chase argued the states never left the union, but Congress treated them as foreign lands and occupied them (Reconstruction).
LOL Looks like I have some reading to do. I have the Kearns book here. Maybe I'll crack it open.
Pretty easy, just let them go. The agri south and industrial north would have made great trade partners.
I wonder why people think all the lives and resources destroyed were worth it to preserve a voluntary union?
Oh I know, the winner writes the history books.
Of course. Just like the Afro-Phonecians who really discovered N. America are nearly forgotten by history. Winners always write the history books.
You know, the premise of two nations made of the North and South sounds quite interesting for a book. :thinking:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I wonder exactly how RoadKing and others propose Lincoln handle the secession of the South. The South, who refused to negotiate and placed profit or people.
I have the Kearns book here. Maybe I'll crack it open. 
