[W:135] Great book to study The Problem with Lincoln

[swing_voter]

It's your version that is revisionist. How many times does Lincoln himself need to be cited? Why was nothing done about 'slavery' until years after the war started? Instead they focused on pork for railroad scams, protectionism for northern manufacturers, and real estate fraud.

Was the Civil War About Slavery? - YouTube

This is from Prager U, a conservative think tank.

 

[Closer]

Was the Civil War About Slavery? - YouTube

This is from Prager U, a conservative think tank.

Prager is a crank.

 

[Sietske22]

The word STATES means GOVERNMENT of the people, by the people and for the people. Abe told lies to wage war on STATES.

States are not all one. They united for common defense. Do you see any state today being invaded like Abe invaded VA in 1861?

Interesting, seems like you hate Republican Lincoln for invading The South and freeing the slaves.

 

[Sietske22]

I am republican yet Centrist. I do my best to post things of interest. Lincoln is very interesting or the threads would die off fast. This has nothing at all to do with your topic you named; ^^^Jews/Blacks/Muslims/Hispanics.^^^ You invented this fiction to change the topic. I used to be loyal to Abe until I found out of all of our presidents, he alone accounts for the deaths of more than 630,000 humans. I can't support a president that ends up killing so many Americans. Again your other derail attempts: about ^^^race/skin color. ^^^ Were not part of the OP and you brought it up.

So you think Republican Lincoln was wrong to free the slaves and preserve the Union?

You are on the side of the racist Democrat Confederates? Huh..

 

[Sietske22]

The South did not invade VA. Abe Lincoln invaded VA. Slavery then was legal everywhere in this country. 12 presidents owned slaves. It had to be legal.

Just as a reminder, this is a lie. Slavery was illegal in pretty much EVERY state not in the South.

 

[Closer]

more rubbish posted since my last visit. The fact is Congress voted down the first bill that outlawed slavery, and Lincoln vetoed the second one, the Wade-DAvos Bill, and the reason was he stated that Congress didn't have the power to ban slavery. There is also the fact that Congress spent the first three years of the war passing corporate welfare programs for railroads and massive protective tariffs for northern manufacturers, the reasons Lincoln started the war over. Those who are serious students of the era and its politics can find the books Re-Electing Lincoln and Ordeal By Fire for more details on what Lincoln was for, and freeing slaves was not one of them, nor was it the primary reason Yankees supported the war. Just ignore the fakes here claiming otherwise; they haven't posted a thing that proves otherwise, and are mostly just trolls. Secession was not illegal, and in fact northern states were the states most often threatening to secede all the time during our first 60- 70 years as a country.

 

[watsup]

more rubbish posted since my last visit. The fact is Congress voted down the first bill that outlawed slavery, and Lincoln vetoed the second one, the Wade-DAvos Bill, and the reason was he stated that Congress didn't have the power to ban slavery. There is also the fact that Congress spent the first three years of the war passing corporate welfare programs for railroads and massive protective tariffs for northern manufacturers, the reasons Lincoln started the war over. Those who are serious students of the era and its politics can find the books Re-Electing Lincoln and Ordeal By Fire for more details on what Lincoln was for, and freeing slaves was not one of them, nor was it the primary reason Yankees supported the war. Just ignore the fakes here claiming otherwise; they haven't posted a thing that proves otherwise, and are mostly just trolls. Secession was not illegal, and in fact northern states were the states most often threatening to secede all the time during our first 60- 70 years as a country.

There is no record stating that secession is not illegal, and Linciln did not start the war for "corporate welfare" reasons. You are wrong on both counts.

 

[Closer]

There is no record stating that secession is not illegal, and Linciln did not start the war for "corporate welfare" reasons. You are wrong on both counts.

Sure, Lincoln the railroad lawyer, who defended a white slaveowner in an IIllinois case and voted to strenghten the Black Codes in his state in the 1850's, and was a vocal advocate for the old Whig 'American System' wanted all that pork barrel legislation becasue he was an enlightened moral man who loved black folk and wanted them all free just because he was a wonderful guy and all the northerners did so for that reason too.

 

[Closer]

There is no record stating that secession is not illegal, and Linciln did not start the war for "corporate welfare" reasons. You are wrong on both counts.

Granting the power to the Federal govt. to use force against a state was specifically rejected at the Constitutional Convention, after James Madison spoke out against such a clause. It was northern states who routinely threatened to secede whenever they didn't get their way on something or other, usually the New England states, prior to the 1850's. Nobody thought secession was illegal, except when it got in the way of massive pork projects and protectionism for northern states at the expense of the southern states.

 

[watsup]

And 8

Sure, Lincoln the railroad lawyer, who defended a white slaveowner in an IIllinois case and voted to strenghten the Black Codes in his state in the 1850's, and was a vocal advocate for the old Whig 'American System' wanted all that pork barrel legislation becasue he was an enlightened moral man who loved black folk and wanted them all free just because he was a wonderful guy and all the northerners did so for that reason too.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody has said that the North engaged the war to free the slaves. You’re just arguing with yourself by constructing that strawman.

 

[watsup]

Granting the power to the Federal govt. to use force against a state was specifically rejected at the Constitutional Convention, after James Madison spoke out against such a clause. It was northern states who routinely threatened to secede whenever they didn't get their way on something or other, usually the New England states, prior to the 1850's. Nobody thought secession was illegal, except when it got in the way of massive pork projects and protectionism for northern states at the expense of the southern states.

No matter what James Madison said, no provision was put into the Constitution to allow states to secede, nor was there any court decision that said so. If the South wanted to secede, they should have brought a case before the Supreme Court to see if it was legal and Constitutional instead of starting a war about it.

 

[Closer]

No matter what James Madison said, no provision was put into the Constitution to allow states to secede, nor was there any court decision that said so. If the South wanted to secede, they should have brought a case before the Supreme Court to see if it was legal and Constitutional instead of starting a war about it.

Didn't need any provisions for secession; the Constitution was about specifying what the Federal govt. could do and not do, and the intent was joining was voluntary, and so was remaining in the Union. It wasn't in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to decide on non-existent restrictions on states.

And, Lincoln started the war, and did so deliberately.

 

[Closer]

And 8


I have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody has said that the North engaged the war to free the slaves. You’re just arguing with yourself by constructing that strawman.

Of course you do; you just know what I said wasn't disputable is all, but wanted the last word anyway.

 

[Fledermaus]

Just as a reminder, this is a lie. Slavery was illegal in pretty much EVERY state not in the South.

Delaware and Maryland come to mind.

 

[Fledermaus]

Didn't need any provisions for secession; the Constitution was about specifying what the Federal govt. could do and not do, and the intent was joining was voluntary, and so was remaining in the Union. It wasn't in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to decide on non-existent restrictions on states.

And, Lincoln started the war, and did so deliberately.

By firing on US flagged shipping and confiscating Federal property before he came into office and then firing on Ft. Sumter after he took office....

No, wait.

That was the South.

 

[Closer]

By firing on US flagged shipping and confiscating Federal property before he came into office and then firing on Ft. Sumter after he took office....

No, wait.

That was the South.

No wait, we have Lincoln himself bragging about how his illegal blockade of Charleston got the results he wanted. A blockade is an act of war anywhre in the world, always has been, and still is, so that 'they touched me first!!' bullshit doesn't fly, except maybe on grade school playgrounds.

 

[Fledermaus]

No wait, we have Lincoln himself bragging about how his illegal blockade of Charleston got the results he wanted. A blockade is an act of war anywhre in the world, always has been, and still is, so that 'they touched me first!!' bullshit doesn't fly, except maybe on grade school playgrounds.

Shots were fired BEFORE Lincoln took office.

Before.

As prior to.

Antibellum.

Preceeding.

So, any source for the irrelevant Lincoln quote?

And you do know firing on US flagged shipping is an act of war. As is confiscation of federal properties and land.

 

[Montgomery]

Which side of this debate is right and which is wrong is of no consequence to the greater world. This is serving to acknowledge America's racism problem and then to place blame.

Americans created a race problem by holding black people back in so many ways and now America has a huge modern day problem with no apparent way of dealing with it.

Violence against black people, both citizen violence and police violence is not serving as a remedy in this 21st. century in which no race is going to submit to the epidemic level of racism in America.

It was responsible for the birth of the Trump regime and that's clear indication that lethal force will continue to fail.
However, the American right isn't defeated yet from their resorting to force, and will try again to bring back Trump and his methods.

 

[watsup]

Didn't need any provisions for secession; the Constitution was about specifying what the Federal govt. could do and not do, and the intent was joining was voluntary, and so was remaining in the Union. It wasn't in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to decide on non-existent restrictions on states.

And, Lincoln started the war, and did so deliberately.

Of course it was. The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, and in no case did they or any other court do so in a way that would allow for secession.
And hat he south started the war by firing in Fort Sumter, and did so for the primary purpose of maintaining and extending the scourge of human slavery of blacks.

 

[watsup]

Of course you do; you just know what I said wasn't disputable is all, but wanted the last word anyway.

I stand by my statement. YOU are the one who keeps claiming that the North entered the war because of slavery. I have literally never heard anyone but a right winger such as yourself make that statement.

 

[watsup]

No wait, we have Lincoln himself bragging about how his illegal blockade of Charleston got the results he wanted. A blockade is an act of war anywhre in the world, always has been, and still is, so that 'they touched me first!!' bullshit doesn't fly, except maybe on grade school playgrounds.

Source for “bragging”, please. Or did you just make it up?

 

[Closer]

Shots were fired BEFORE Lincoln took office.

Before.

As prior to.

Antibellum.

Preceeding.

So, any source for the irrelevant Lincoln quote?

And you do know firing on US flagged shipping is an act of war. As is confiscation of federal properties and land.

Yes, which is why Lincoln, unlike Buchanan, used the same act of war against Carolina to start his war. And do you know blockading a port and threaening to extort shipping into a country is an act of war, shots or no shots? Apparently you don't. Your schoolyard logic doesnt' apply; Lincoln wasn't going to allow the South to secede and set up their own 10% tariffs and direct shipping to Europe,; we know this because he said so, it was the reason he rejected the peace delegation form Virginia, which hadn't seceded yet.


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Much more on this:

Colonel Baldwin Meets Mr. Lincoln – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

 

[Closer]

I stand by my statement. YOU are the one who keeps claiming that the North entered the war because of slavery. I have literally never heard anyone but a right winger such as yourself make that statement.

I'm not a right winger, you're just a tard with no discretionary abilities, and no I'm not claiming the North started a war over slavery. Your blatant lying just looks ridiculous even for a clueless troll.

 

[Closer]

Source for “bragging”, please. Or did you just make it up?

Ptove it was 'made up'; be an innernetz Hero and try for the REAL last word instead of just trolling. Most competent people can find the source easily.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes, which is why Lincoln, unlike Buchanan, used the same act of war against Carolina to start his war. And do you know blockading a port and threaening to extort shipping into a country is an act of war, shots or no shots? Apparently you don't. Your schoolyard logic doesnt' apply; Lincoln wasn't going to allow the South to secede and set up their own 10% tariffs and direct shipping to Europe,; we know this because he said so, it was the reason he rejected the peace delegation form Virginia, which hadn't seceded yet.

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Much more on this:

Colonel Baldwin Meets Mr. Lincoln – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

There was no "act of war" by either Buchanon or Lincoln.

Resupplying a Federal Fort isn't an act of war. The act of war was firing on a US flagged ship. Followed by South Carlonia seizing all federal property in the Charleston area except ft Sumter. Then the act of war of firing on federal troops in ft Sumter.

The next acts of war were seizing armories, facilities a mint house, etc in other states....

All before one Federal soldier marched into VA.