Posted on 12/22/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by Federalist Patriot
Oddly, northern states didn’t rebel.
That shows your assertion that the north was part of the Slave Power is false.
“... Lincoln getting killed...” seems impersonal, as if a meteor fell from the sky.
Lincoln was murdered by a unrepentant southern partisan, who rather than assert the legality of his act, ran away.
Of course there were no darned labor unions on the plantations. Is that your preferred form of labor organization?
Whereas I wouldn’t call him an ignorant puppy. He knows exactly what he is doing.
There is an important moral difference between stupid and evil.
Of course, they didn’t define ‘rape’ as abuse.
A lot of interesting falsehoods scattered among the historical facts in that link.
Assertion: Secession was Lincoln’s fault for being elected.
Fact: Pretended secession of several states took place before Lincoln took office. Lincoln can hardly be blamed for the Democratic Party’s breakup on the issue of slavery. Of course the southern partisan’s devotion to slavery can be blamed for the Democratic Party’s breakup.
Assertion: Ft Sumter was built on foreign soil.
Fact: Ft. Sumter was built on a shoal, built up with stone from NY and MA, with the cost borne by the Union, with most taxes collected in northern ports.
Assertion: US Constitution ended the Perpetual Union of the Articles of Confederation.
Fact: US Constitution itself states that it makes the Union “more perfect”. What union would that be? The existing perpetual union is the only one to hand.
Secession could be legally accomplished under the Constitution, but only certainly by amendment approved by 3/4s of the states, or by treaty or possibly by federal, or possibly by federal court case. Legal secession by federal action was thought to be so unlikely that illegal acts of secession were adopted, and armies raised by the south to support rebellion. Rebellion could have, if successful, led to a treaty with the US, giving legal status to the pretended Confederacy. Since they didn’t win their rebellion, they didn’t get that treaty, and thus remain an illegal nullity.
No contract can be abrogated at will by a single party to it. If it was so, then there would be no reason to have a contract. The US constitution has within it, means to resolve issues between the states, or between the states and the federal Constitution. Issues involving states are resolved with the Supreme Court as original jurisdiction.
That is why one of the legal means to secession is by court case.
Lincoln wanted to ship the ex-slaves back to Africa. Therefore, if Lincoln had lived, there would not have been any attempt to reinstate slavery and no need for the brutal policies of the Radical Reconstructionists.
That’s my thinking anyway.
ML/NJ
True.
Perhaps, but I believe that the divide as demonstrated by the neo-confederates here represent a tiny fringe and nowhere any sort of mainstream.
Most northerners (and by northerners I mean the traditional northern states, the southwest, western, and pacific northwest states, as well as the majority of the border states and significant portions of several southern states) aren't preoccupied with the WBTS other than from a historical perspective. Lost Causers, on the other hand, are totally obsessed and allow it to figure into every aspect of their day~to~day lives.
So you have a truly transformative event like a civil war and the reconstruction in which the "conquered" were afforded the most tolerant treatment of any failed rebellion to date, fast-forward 150 years to see that same region prospering better than most of the country, and still you have some curmudgeons who lament the passing of the failed rebellion.
In the final analysis those contrarian Lost Cause Losers are so few in number that they have to shout and act disruptively or else you wouldn't even know they're there at all lol.
Well said!!!
FWIW, my relatives didn’t get to the USA until the 1890’s at the earliest. So as far as the Civil War goes, I have no dog in that fight, never did.
I refute it thus: Slavery In The North
And thus: Northern Profits From Slavery
You and your coven of neo-yank False Cause Losers are in total denial from the facts about the War of Northern Aggression to Christianity.
Ahhh, another member of 'the collective' who abhors individualism, liberty, freedom and truth. We must all be part of your 'collective', eh! Have your brown shirts been delivered back to you safely from the cleaners, herr punkrr?
aren't preoccupied with the WBTS
And so says the ever-present queen of the neo-yank False Cause Losers.........
In the final analysis those contrarian Lost Cause Losers are so few in number that they have to shout and act disruptively or else you wouldn't even know they're there at all lol.
Don't forget to polish your jack boots. We want you to look your best when you and your band of neo-yank False Cause Losers mount up to silence anyone who refuses to accept the propaganda from 'the collective'.
So, the de facto repeal of the Tenth Amendment means nothing to you? You're an advocate for Big Gov and support the idea of the president being a term limited monarch? You're an opponent of states rights? You believe that might makes right?
The neo-yank False Cause Losers are gonna warmly embrace you into their coven..........my condolences.........
Look up 'breach of contract'.
The US constitution has within it, means to resolve issues between the states, or between the states and the federal Constitution.
Then why didn't disHonest Abe pursue those? Delegates were sent to Warshington for that express purpose, weren't they. disHonest Abe didn't want a court resolution because his overriding objective was to destroy once and for all the system of federalism and states' rights that the founding fathers had created as a check on the centralizing tendencies of the state. He didn't put it this way, of course, but instead used the deceptive language of "saving the Union." But holding any union together at gunpoint destroys it by destroying its voluntary and consensual nature.
But, we can't expect a hard core neo-yank False Cause Loser to accept the truth in place of your cherished propaganda, can we, herr meaker?
I like the judge but he’s a pro-life libertarian. Meaning he’s basically Ron Paul.
I’m not obsessed with a war that’s been over for 150 years. I don’t let it fill my thoughts.
If that makes me a “neo Yankee” oh well. Sticks and stones..
The amount of zealots on both sides of this “for naught” discussion is ridicoulous.
I guess you don't get it. I don't care what happened in the South beyond thinking that the death and destruction was unnecessary. I care about things here in the North. I see the North-South divide more as a FreeRepublic-DemocratUnderground sort of thing.
Actually, as I became interested in American History as an adult my focus was upon the Founding Era. I couldn't really understand why so many people made such a big deal about the "Civil War." But when I began to search for what ended so many of the principles the Framers enunciated and put into our Founding documents, most of the time that search ended with Abraham Lincoln. And so I began to read more. It's not pretty, but it is our history.
ML/NJ
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Am I obsessed? Yes, for the truth. Wouldn't you rather history be factually correct instead of politically correct?
The amount of zealots
Zealots? Sticks and stones.
on both sides of this “for naught” discussion is ridiculous.
Well, bye.........I'm sure there's a Lady Gaga thread out there somewhere that will grab your attention.
What does that have to do with his historical analysis? Can you find inaccuracies or lies in the writings that I've posted?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.