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.
Although I would not have agreed with the Confederacy's stance on slavery -- the right of southern states to leave the union (or any state for that matter) was constitutional and valid. The Lincoln government certainly violated the rights of those states and also completely changed the U.S. form of government from one that was libertarian to one that was more centralized, more statist, and more tyrannical.
He was one of our worst U.S. presidents no doubt, definitely in the bottom five.
Lincoln comes behind ONLY Woodrow Wilson when ranking the worst. Imho, anyway.
The "perfect union" became "shotgun wedding" when they conjured up the 14th Amendment and then set about the ratification process. It wasn't the secessions or creation of the CSA...that was actually decently adherent to what the Founders did 85 years prior, and had a ton of the same arguments and proposals as you'd find in the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, speeches by the Virginia Anti-Constitutionalists, etc.
Basically, the Civil War gave you the replay of what would have happened had Britain been victorious during the American Revolution, with the only real difference being Lincoln stepping up King George III's tyranny game.
The federal government wasn't run at Ft. Sumter. It's like keeping British bases on U.S. soil after the U.S. declared their independence. That's not the reason why King George rejected our independence and fought the war and that's not the reason Lincoln fought the war. Damn, he said the reasons and people still believe it was to overthrow the government. This is our B.S. education and propaganda.
It's like the Natives of Hawaii declaring their independence and the Federal troops waging war on the whole islands because a shot was fired at Fort Shafter in Hawaii and the Natives wants federal bases gone. None of you would say that the Natives of Hawaii wants to overthrow the U.S. and wage war on them. It's their land.
You can argue that Lincoln was not within his rights to invade the South to keep the union whole but war is war.. and its not accurate simply to claim the Union generals were mass murderers.. Perhaps Sherman came close, but no other Union generals. Be Honest...
If China generals with their army comes to the Northern states to kill every resistant to their invasion and rule. Destroy cities, farms,and crops and jail people without a trial and put a blockade of food and medicine, what would you call that? Be honest......
If China generals with their army comes to the Northern states to kill every resistant to their invasion and rule. Destroy cities, farms,and crops and jail people without a trial and put a blockade of food and medicine, what would you call that? Be honest......
The Confederacy straight up said in their Articles of Secession that they were seceding to preserve the institution of slavery.
Most Confederate states specifically said that same thing in their constitutions and articles of secession.
Please do some reading and stop lying.
(sigh) Yet another high and mighty proclamation from someone standing on the victory laurels of the Union. As to calling me a liar I have a more crass and blunt response that I'll let you use your imagination in profession. and quote my whole post and quit the lying cherry picking blather. You think you've won some great and glorious debate victory with this unstudied and total lacking in context quip?
No doubt you fancy yourself some sort of lofty academician worthy of the historical attention paid to the likes of Aristotle or Plato. You're out of your depth with me here. And cherry picking ONE sentence out of a post that said a LOT more makes you look like a fool. Tell yourself whatever you want. Doesn't mean anyone else should pay it any heed.
The Articles of Secession for every Confederate state specifically mentions slavery and/or the natural superiority of the White Race over the black one as the reason behind it. Read them. I have.
If by "states rights", you mean "The right of one group of people to own, mistreat, dispose of, and murder another group of people at will as chattel property", then we agree.
This is ignorance at best. The South could have put in their state constitution that White is the bomb and Africans are inferior. That wasn't illegal just like California doing abortions on demand today. That's not the reason Lincoln fought them. He fought them because they left the Union.
You can't go after people for doing something legal and backed by the Supreme Court. Lincoln couldn't wage war because of slavery because Lincoln and the North had no authority to stop it and to be honest they didn't care and didn't want to. That's why Lincoln and the North passed the Corwin Amendment in 1861 of the things you accuse the South to avoid war so the South returns to the Union and bow down and pay their taxes. The South refused and Lincoln went King George. He went Mao. He went Fidel Castro.
You have Lincoln own words why he fought the war and people still repeat nonsense and try to excuse this tyrant.
so you admit the feds invaded the South and put Americans in jail with no due process. All because they declared their independence. Hmmm, looks like what every tyrant did in history.
(sigh) Yet another high and mighty proclamation from someone standing on the victory laurels of the Union. As to calling me a liar I have a more crass and blunt response that I'll let you use your imagination in profession. and quote my whole post and quit the lying cherry picking blather. You think you've won some great and glorious debate victory with this unstudied and total lacking in context quip?
No doubt you fancy yourself some sort of lofty academician worthy of the historical attention paid to the likes of Aristotle or Plato. You're out of your depth with me here. And cherry picking ONE sentence out of a post that said a LOT more makes you look like a fool. Tell yourself whatever you want. Doesn't mean anyone else should pay it any heed.
actually, I corrected that earlier. the poster of the statement, obviously read the vandalized wiki article, and not the articles themselves (which are reprinted in their entirety everywhere)
the reasons for leaving, are not less locally important than japans for southern pacific conquest (and curiously, against the same common foe)
Way way back in HS we had a yearlong class called 'critical reading and thinking' (mostly banned in most states today) in which you could be assigned to defend the articles of secession. If you drop leftist narrative, its not hard to do. it ignores the reprehensible practice, which one must to understand it.
Very few people stood on the box of sainthood here. at least in period govt. the ending of the practice came from conservative thinkers at the lowest rungs of society.
If China generals with their army comes to the Northern states to kill every resistant to their invasion and rule. Destroy cities, farms,and crops and jail people without a trial and put a blockade of food and medicine, what would you call that? Be honest......
That would be an invasion by a foreign power. China has never had any claim to any territory within the United States, unlike the US government, which owned considerable property in the South, and the South was historically a part of the US.
A better analogy would be if China were to invade, blockade and pillage Taiwan. In that case, the US will be like Great Britain was during the Civil War, trying to decide whether to recognize the rebellious nation.
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.
orthy of the historical attention paid to the likes of Aristotle or Plato. You're out of your depth with me here. And cherry picking ONE sentence out of a post that said a LOT more makes you look like a fool. Tell yourself whatever you want. Doesn't mean anyone else should pay it any heed.