Had you lived during the Civil War, where would you have stood?
- Thread starter The Patriot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- u.s. civil war
Ft Sumter was a military base well before the civil war. They didn't invade and establish that base after the south seceded. The South drew first blood. Maybe a year or two af negotiation might have been in order for an event that was breaking the union apart. Quite quick to go to war. Seems like we have just had a southern president that was quick to go to war.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,904
It's funny to see people play the race card with Lincoln and are naive enough to think that actually changes anything. Lincoln actually tried to free the slaves in the border states through compensated emancipation. That's an indisputable, undeniable fact. Was Lincoln racist? Don't know and don't care. I don't know because, like any other politician of his day, he needed to placate white voters, many of who (most of whom?) were racist. I don't care because that doesn't change the fact that he actually tried to end slavery before signing the emancipation proclamation. Like I said. These threads are a waste of time.
Maybe because they stayed together and worked it out politically. What Lincolns view of blacks were has no bearing. Once the course of action was set it didn't matter who was in the whitehouse. People on all side wanted a glorious war.
Did he try to free the border state slaves before he invaded the South? Did the Emancipation Proclamation free any slaves in the Union? If Lincoln didn't have the power to free the slaves in his own country where did he get the power to kill 600,000 Americans?
Whatever. I'm glad I grew up and quit buying the bull of both sides.
The Patriot
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,286
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln supported preserving this tyrannical "union" above all else. We were all slaves to the union In his view, All Sovereign states and individuals had no right to leave the union, no right to secession, and that the Constitution and the United States was a permanent contract. That is absurd, America was formed out of secession, the articles of Confederation was exited Voluntarily, and the Constitution was entered voluntarily. States can leave it voluntarily as they wish. If we do not except this premise, than the American colonies had no right to separate from the British Empire and King George. The South and the North should have just gone before the British king and begged his forgiveness and reentered the commonwealth if we are to accept Lincoln's premise. Lincoln is just essentially replacing King George with the "sovereign union", that we have no right to withdraw and reassume the powers we entrusted to the union when we entered it.
Abraham Lincoln was a fascist, he burned down opposition newspapers and eliminated Habeas Corpus in the border states. He supported the redistribution of Southern wealth to finance Northern Industrialists who bankrolled him. The south paid for 80% of the Federal tax revenue and 87% of that revenue went to northern industry. He stood for fiat money, national banks, the income tax, and was a predecessor to Modern Keynesianism as he supported public railroads and public works projects.
If you stand for free markets, states' rights, Voluntaryism, and the original vision of the founders who believed in the right to secession than you must stand against Lincoln's war of aggression and support the Confederate States and their right to secession
Last edited:
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,904
1) The south seceded and attacked Ft Sumpter before Lincoln had a chance to negotiate.
2) Everybody knows the answer to that is no. Not sure why you brought that up. That still doesn't change the fact that he attempted compensated emancipation. Also the emancipation proclamation had the effect of ending the confusion over whether union officers could return escaped slaves.
3) The same place George Washington got the power to put down the Whiskey Rebellion or Andrew Jackson got the power to threaten to hang secessionists when he was president. (If you think Old Hickory was bluffing, ask the Indians.)
Like I said. Threads like these are a waste of time. The "debate" is usually done by one side throwing up new factoids while never actually addressing anything the other side actually said.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,904
+1776. I wish people who are so passionate about this would take their enthusiasm to the next "Sons of the Confederacy" meeting and explained to them why we shouldn't be in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have no shortage of confederate flags in the part of the country where I live. We do have a shortage of Ron Paul voters though.
Last edited:
Was Fort Sumter in the South or in the Union?
You brought it up.
Did he attempt to buy the freedom of border state slaves before or after his invasion of the South?
Slavery was still legal in New Jersey, not a border state.
muzzled dogg
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 7,721
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,904
Was John McCain born on U.S. soil?
By definition New Jersey was a border state. (Slave holding state that was still in the union). That said there were 18 slaves in the entire state. New Jersey had passed an act for the gradual abolition of slavery back in 1804 and only 18 slaves were left. And of course this is all besides the point. Lincoln clearly attempted to free the slaves in the border states even though he was under no obligation to do so. That undercuts the fake argument of people like you that Lincoln made no attempt to free the slaves before the emancipation proclamation. Go back and read the reasons the southern legislatures gave for secession. (Hint. Everyone of them mentioned the preservation of slavery).
Lastly, why aren't you out trying to get your fellow confederates to reject the Iran and Afghanistan wars? Really, threads like this are a waste of time.
Mach
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,137
berrybunches
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 994
That's easy, its because they had stronger, older and more solid federal governments that could more easily dictate what rights were protected nationally instead of a hodgepodge of different dictatorial states who had more power than them. The war was inevitable, the South should not have been paid for their slaves. If anything, the slaves should have had been paid for their services and the slave owners jailed.
You wouldn't have been able to buy out the South anyway...do people really think the South would have given up their slaves that easily? Really?
Was John McCain born on U.S. soil?
By definition New Jersey was a border state. (Slave holding state that was still in the union). That said there were 18 slaves in the entire state. New Jersey had passed an act for the gradual abolition of slavery back in 1804 and only 18 slaves were left. And of course this is all besides the point. Lincoln clearly attempted to free the slaves in the border states even though he was under no obligation to do so. That undercuts the fake argument of people like you that Lincoln made no attempt to free the slaves before the emancipation proclamation. Go back and read the reasons the southern legislatures gave for secession. (Hint. Everyone of them mentioned the preservation of slavery).
Lastly, why aren't you out trying to get your fellow confederates to reject the Iran and Afghanistan wars? Really, threads like this are a waste of time.
Did he try and buy the freedom of the Union slaves before o after his invasion of the South?
Linking Lincoln to interventionism is a great way to oppose it in the South. Destroying the economy of the South resulted in 100 years of racial strife, just like it will in Iraq.
Slave traders were already banned from Mississippi before the war though slavery was still legal, just like New Jersey. Why not invade New Jersey? Oh, that's right, New Jersey didn't secede and take away Lincoln's precious tariff money.
Live_Free_Or_Die
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 5,852
I would like to offer to this thread a few Declarations of Secession. These declarations have a central theme, injustice. The topic of the injustice is slavery but the legal substance of the injustice is contractual. A compact which was made with full knowledge of slavery in advance of its making.
It is arguing people are not bound by their contracts. It is arguing authority for national health care does not require constitutional amendment. Who among us supports slavery? I doubt anyone, but does anyone here reject personal responsibility? Only men of flawed principle could enter into an unethical contract. I doubt many people would support people breaking contracts on grounds one of the contracting parties was ethically flawed regardless if the other party knew it in advance.
Yes slavery did end but without restitution. How can one assert a moral justice was served with no restitution? As Dr. Paul has often stated every other nation ended slavery without civil war. If some yet unknown American patriot fires a first shot which sparks another revolution will the history books cite him as the aggressor? In addition to civil war, what other unintended consequences have been endured for the north breaking the constitutional contract?
I would have sided with the abolishionists on matters of morality and the Confederates on matters of constitutional law.
Link to Declarations of Secession:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi
It is arguing people are not bound by their contracts. It is arguing authority for national health care does not require constitutional amendment. Who among us supports slavery? I doubt anyone, but does anyone here reject personal responsibility? Only men of flawed principle could enter into an unethical contract. I doubt many people would support people breaking contracts on grounds one of the contracting parties was ethically flawed regardless if the other party knew it in advance.
Yes slavery did end but without restitution. How can one assert a moral justice was served with no restitution? As Dr. Paul has often stated every other nation ended slavery without civil war. If some yet unknown American patriot fires a first shot which sparks another revolution will the history books cite him as the aggressor? In addition to civil war, what other unintended consequences have been endured for the north breaking the constitutional contract?
I would have sided with the abolishionists on matters of morality and the Confederates on matters of constitutional law.
Link to Declarations of Secession:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi
constituent
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,724
Me too... but probably somewhere just far enough outside of Indianola, TX.
FreeTraveler
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,027
The only sensible answer. Lock thread.
Live_Free_Or_Die
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 5,852
I wonder how Spooner would define fraud.
