Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lincolnís War
Tenth Amendment Center ^ | May 04, 2009 | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway

One of the greatest misconceptions of American history is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Those who subscribe to this belief see President Abraham Lincoln as the benevolent leader who made unimaginable sacrifices in human blood to wipe out America’s greatest sin. While the human sacrifice is indisputable and the sin was monumental, the war’s purpose was not to free blacks from the shackles of bondage. Rather, the Civil War was fought with one purpose in mind: To preserve the Union at all costs. And, to put it in Lincoln’s terms, with no ifs, ands, or buts. You’d better agree with the president, or else.

(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: apologistsforslavery; bigot; confederacy; despot; dishonestabe; dixie; greatestpresident; lincoln; napolitano; racistsonfr; tyrant; tyrantlincoln; war; warcriminal; whitesupremacists; worstpresident
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-497 next last
"However, Lincoln chose to ignore the historical underpinnings of the American political system; the right of secession followed from the American Revolution as the colonists separated from the British Empire and declared their independence. President Lincoln also made the faulty assumption that the Union takes precedence over the states, as the goal was “to form a more perfect Union.” He failed to recognize that states are free and independent, and combined they form the Union. As Ronald Reagan would say in his first inaugural address over a century later, “the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.” This subtle distinction is an important aspect of State sovereignty. The United States was founded on the ideals that federal power could be challenged by the states. Lincoln overlooked the fact that the states had formed a voluntary agreement and did not have the ability to surrender their sovereignty forever to a centralized power."

Too bad all yankees can't be as honest as Judge Napolitano..............

1 posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
As Ronald Reagan would say in his first inaugural address over a century later, “the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”
2 posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:58 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Lincoln was as much a tool of Northern industrial interests as Obama is of financial interests. It should and will be a Constitutional crisis.


3 posted on 05/06/2009 10:40:34 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

The invasdion of the Southern states by the national government, the Constitutional liberties taken by Lincoln, the bad precedent set for the expansion of federal power, and all the carnage would have been worth it, in my opinion, if they’d have said from the outset “We’re invading to set the negro free.” That’s not what it was about.


4 posted on 05/06/2009 10:40:58 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mo

“It was about slavery, period”. General James Longstreet, CSA.


5 posted on 05/06/2009 10:41:38 AM PDT by laconic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

index for later


6 posted on 05/06/2009 10:41:38 AM PDT by JohnBrowdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
One of the greatest misconceptions of American history is that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

It was:

"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course...Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world. --Mississppi Declaration of the Causes of Secession

SIR: In obedience to your instructions I repaired to the seat of government of the State of Louisiana to confer with the Governor of that State and with the legislative department on the grave and important state of our political relations with the Federal Government, and the duty of the slave-holding States in the matter of their rights and honor, so menacingly involved in matters connected with the institution of African slavery. --Report from John Winston, Alabama's Secession Commissioner to Louisiana

This was the ground taken, gentlemen, not only by Mississippi, but by other slaveholding States, in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction. It cannot, therefore, be pretended that the Northern people did not have ample warning of the disastrous and fatal consequences that would follow the success of that party in the election, and impartial history will emblazon it to future generations, that it was their folly, their recklessness and their ambition, not ours, which shattered into pieces this great confederated Government, and destroyed this great temple of constitutional liberty which their ancestors and ours erected, in the hope that their descendants might together worship beneath its roof as long as time should last. -- Speech of Fulton Anderson to the Virginia Secession Convention

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. -- Texas Declaration of the causes of secession

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Secession Convention

This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery, or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us...If we take the former, then submission to negro equality is our fate. if the latter, then secession is inevitable --- -- Address of William L. Harris of Mississippi

But I trust I may not be intrusive if I refer for a moment to the circumstances which prompted South Carolina in the act of her own immediate secession, in which some have charged a want of courtesy and respect for her Southern sister States. She had not been disturbed by discord or conflict in the recent canvass for president or vice-president of the United States. She had waited for the result in the calm apprehension that the Black Republican party would succeed. She had, within a year, invited her sister Southern States to a conference with her on our mutual impending danger. Her legislature was called in extra session to cast her vote for president and vice-president, through electors, of the United States and before they adjourned the telegraphic wires conveyed the intelligence that Lincoln was elected by a sectional vote, whose platform was that of the Black Republican party and whose policy was to be the abolition of slavery upon this continent and the elevation of our own slaves to equality with ourselves and our children, and coupled with all this was the act that, from our friends in our sister Southern States, we were urged in the most earnest terms to secede at once, and prepared as we were, with not a dissenting voice in the State, South Carolina struck the blow and we are now satisfied that none have struck too soon, for when we are now threatened with the sword and the bayonet by a Democratic administration for the exercise of this high and inalienable right, what might we meet under the dominion of such a party and such a president as Lincoln and his minions. -- Speech of John McQueen, the Secession Commissioner from South Carolina to Texas

History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. -- Address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right." -- Alexander Stephens, March 1861

7 posted on 05/06/2009 10:43:36 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mo

“Lincoln was as much a tool of Northern industrial interests as Obama is of financial interests”

I disagree. That’s like saying fascist leaders were the tool of Big Business. It’s an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because Big Business happens to benefit from the expansion of government, and just because many Big Business leaders supported Hitler and support the Democrats, does not mean fascistic policies are serving the interests of Big Business.

On the contrary, when the central government takes control of some private authority—be it the Church, the steel industry, or whatever—it’s all about the government. Obama isn’t serving the interests of financiers. He’s serving his own interest: the interest of government power. He’s interfering in the financial market because he thinks it’s a good idea for the government to control the financial industry. If certain financiers benefit from his intervention, that’s a side issue.


8 posted on 05/06/2009 10:47:21 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

The claims that the civil war was fought over states rights, not slavery, is silly. It’s akin to saying the cause of death in flu victims is coughing. What caused the couging though? Oh yeah, flu! Likewise, what was the right the states were most concerned about? The right to keep slaves! This was viewed as critical to their economic viability and was the result of a tremendous and sustained political stalemate in the nation. Bleeding Kansas, Missouri compromise, etc. Lincoln’s election signaled that the North was in political ascendancy and the stalemate on slavery was doomed. Best to secede now before it comes to that. So did the north march south specifically on a moral crusade to free the slaves? No, they did so to “preserve the union” after the southern states seceded. But let’s not forget why they seceded.


9 posted on 05/06/2009 10:47:26 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
During the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Lincoln stated: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided.”

Yo, Judge. Lincoln gave that speech in June 1858 in Springfield, when he accepted the Republican nomination for the Senate. The Lincoln-Douglas debates occured in August, September, and October.

10 posted on 05/06/2009 10:48:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laconic
“It was about slavery, period”. General James Longstreet, CSA.

Well, the abolitionist movement certainly was..........

Get real. Even politically correct historians are beginning to admit that 'slavery was the cause for the war' is an oversimplification and has been the PC party line to appease the blacks.

Besides, everybody knows that Longstreet was bitter following the war. He was the only former Confederate officer to join the Republican Party during Reconstruction.

11 posted on 05/06/2009 10:51:30 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
“As Ronald Reagan would say in his first inaugural address over a century later, “the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”

This subtle distinction is an important aspect of State sovereignty. The United States was founded on the ideals that federal power could be challenged by the states.”

Lincoln overlooked the fact that the states had formed a voluntary agreement and did not have the ability to surrender their sovereignty...to a centralized power.”

I found this excerpt to be quite interesting/thought-provoking. Imagine “sovereign states”. Puts a whole new light on the subject of federal power.

12 posted on 05/06/2009 10:51:48 AM PDT by downtownconservative (As Obama lies, liberty dies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
I generally find that there are two main groups of people who want to deny that the Civil War was fought due to slavery:

1) Leftist anti-Americans who want to diminish the sacrifice that white men made on behalf of black men, thereby eliminating any redemption this country might have earned for slavery.

2) Southerners who don't want to believe that their great-granddaddies fought to defend slavery. Granted, most Confederates didn't own slaves, and there was definitely a great amount of regional loyalty for even those Confederates who didn't like slavery, but had there never been slavery in the US, there never would have been a Civil War. Period.
13 posted on 05/06/2009 10:53:08 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You have to ask why Lincoln didn’t emancipate slaves until two years into the conflict. The answer will be that practical matters prevented him from doing so. Strategy and the Constitution and the like. And then you will have destroyed the idea that it was ALL about slavery. For how could it be all about slavery if he had gone so far to make war on a whole section of the country without addressing the slavery issue.

The war was about succession and union, which in turn was about slavery. That’s the trick. It was about slavery all along, but slavery once removed. It wasn’t about slavery directly until two years in. To argue otherwise is to ignore most everything Lincoln said.


14 posted on 05/06/2009 10:53:36 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
In South Carolina the legislature chose not to have candidates for president on the ballot, in apparent anticipation of secession.

Yo, Judge. South Carolina had never had a candidate for president on their ballot. In every single presidential election prior to 1860 the legislature had awarded the electoral votes.

15 posted on 05/06/2009 10:53:43 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
As Ronald Reagan said in the very same inaugural address a century later:

“Beyond the Reflecting Pool the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln. ” — Ronald Reagan, Tuesday, January 20, 1981

Too bad you neoconfederates can't get over losing a war 150 years ago, and still whine about an imaginary "war of northern aggression" even though the south seceded before Lincoln was even sworn in and fired on the north first. Even Gore supporters don't whine that much while spouting their delusions of the "stolen election" of 2000.

16 posted on 05/06/2009 10:55:16 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: laconic

Imagine that. Longstreet speaking was the spokesman for Lincoln and the North.

Who knew?


17 posted on 05/06/2009 10:57:20 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Far from over- whelming support, he received only 39 percent of the popular vote,

Yo, Judge. Lincoln received 180 electoral votes, 59.6% of the total. He won every state he carried by a clear majority except for California and Oregon. Had he not carried those states, he still would have had 173 electoral votes - 21 more than necessary.

18 posted on 05/06/2009 10:57:44 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie
The claims that the civil war was fought over states rights, not slavery, is silly.

I agree with the Judge: the WAR was fought over Lincoln's despotic desire to maintain the union.

The South SECEDED over states rights.

You like analogies? Try this one that I posted on another thread:

For all the 'slavery was the cause' crowd, consider this hypothetical:

The state of Kansas passes a law granting the right of same sex couples to marry. Homosexuals only make up 3% of the population but 92% of Kansans voted for the law.

An amendment to the US constitution banning same sex marriage is subsequently ratified and becomes the law of the land.

Kansas declares that it is the right of the people of their state to decide who marries who and secedes.

Did the people of Kansas secede because A) states rights, or, B) they are all flaming homosexuals and desire to marry someone of their own sexual orientation?

19 posted on 05/06/2009 10:59:17 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
However, Lincoln chose to ignore the historical underpinnings of the American political system; the right of secession followed from the American Revolution as the colonists separated from the British Empire and declared their independence.

Yo, Judge. Unless I'm mistaken, the Brits took a dim view of the colonies "secession" and actually took steps to try and prevent it. If secession was a right in 1776 then why did they have to fight for it?

20 posted on 05/06/2009 11:00:04 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative

“Imagine ‘sovereign states’”

I can’t imagine the states being anything but sovereign. If they weren’t, why would it have been necessary to consult them before the Constitution became law.

Ultimately, however, sovereignty must reside with the individual. States cannot violate the rights of individuals any more than the federal government can overstep the prerogatives of the states.

I tend to view the Southern successionist cause as less of a legal thing than a matter of revolution. If you believe in the right of revolution, in the right of the people to violently oppose the government when it becomes destructive of their liberty, I don’t see any reason why you can’t believe in the right of states to revolt. Especially if you’re on the patriots’ side in the Revolutionary War. What was that but the states (/colonies) exercising their right to revolution?

Then again, the prevailing power has as much a right to defend itself as we have a right to revolt. One man’s revolution is another man’s treason.


21 posted on 05/06/2009 11:00:09 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
maybe the good judge should take lincoln's word for it; from his second inaugural address.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

22 posted on 05/06/2009 11:03:18 AM PDT by JohnBrowdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Agree completely. My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The states are soveregn, but have allowed their respective power to be consistently abrogated over the course of the last 100 years...maybe even as a direct outgrowth of the Civil War.

The history we are making now is no less monumental!


23 posted on 05/06/2009 11:05:05 AM PDT by downtownconservative (As Obama lies, liberty dies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
The Confederates fell for the ploy and fired the first shot.

You Judge. Isn't that also known as the "We wuz so stoopid we done fell into Linkum's trap" defense? What the judge also ignores is that Sumter was a federal facility. The Southern states had no legal claim to it.

24 posted on 05/06/2009 11:05:52 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

ping for later read


25 posted on 05/06/2009 11:06:43 AM PDT by mick (Central Banker Capitalism is NOT Free Enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Far from over- whelming support, he received only 39 percent of the popular vote, Yo, Judge. Lincoln received 180 electoral votes, 59.6% of the total.

The Judge references the 'popular vote'. You either didn't read the sentence correctly or you're practicing the standard NS MO of dishonest discourse.

This is killing you ain't it, NS. A well educated yankee judge validating all the arguments that I and others have been having with you for years.

26 posted on 05/06/2009 11:06:48 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

27 posted on 05/06/2009 11:09:07 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

LOL! You lose the point with the very first quote.

“What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?” - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865

Not sure if you don’t understand the use of brackets in quotes or simply don’t care, but the brackets mean that something was added to the quote. I guess some yankee “historian” had to clean up the quote to make revisionists like yourself happy.

And please, as the documentarian extraordinaire, please document for us that there are NO OTHER quotes from these fine people — at all — anywhere — that would suggest that they never gave any OTHER reasons given for their motivations. Surely you do not believe these were the only reasons — or words — they ever uttered or were recorded?

Can’t do it, can you? LOL!!!!

Silly man.


28 posted on 05/06/2009 11:09:18 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

States pass laws all the time that the fed later contradicts. 99.9% of the time, the state deems the issue of insufficient consequence to drive a break with the federal government. Occasionally an issue arises (once, so far) that the states cannot or will not compromise on. When that happens, they may choose to secede. That was what happened in the civil war. They didnt do it to prove a point, that they could secede. The did it because the issue of slavery was one on which there was no further compromise. So yes, it was fought over the right to secede but why did those Southern states secede? Slavery. You just can’t get past that part.


29 posted on 05/06/2009 11:13:12 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie
maybe the good judge should take lincoln's word for it; from his second inaugural address.

The good judge would do better to read this part from the same address: "Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

30 posted on 05/06/2009 11:15:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Not sure if you don’t understand the use of brackets in quotes or simply don’t care, but the brackets mean that something was added to the quote. I guess some yankee “historian” had to clean up the quote to make revisionists like yourself happy.

OK, then tell us. What property did the South go to war to protect if not their slaves? Quotes from the period, please.

And please, as the documentarian extraordinaire, please document for us that there are NO OTHER quotes from these fine people — at all — anywhere — that would suggest that they never gave any OTHER reasons given for their motivations.

I'm not aware of any made prior to or during the rebellion. You got any quotes from any of them?

31 posted on 05/06/2009 11:18:54 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

I’m neither and I believe it was a states rights issue.


32 posted on 05/06/2009 11:20:33 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Yo, Judge. Unless I’m mistaken, the Brits took a dim view of the colonies ‘secession’ and actually took steps to try and prevent it.”

That has nothing to do with the point at hand.

“If secession was a right in 1776 then why did they have to fight for it?”

Is that an honest question? You could just as easily say natural/human rights don’t exist because throughout most of history governments have failed to recognized them. They don’t have to be recognized for them to exist. Maybe the colonists had no God-given right to declare their independence from Britain, but the reaction of the British leadership could not possibly settle the matter.

Maybe it was a matter of “might makes right” when the colonists won independence. Then again, maybe the British were attempting to use “might makes right” when they fought to keep us under their authority. We tend to think the latter. Maybe we’re wrong. But if you believe in the colonies’ right to revolution, I don’t see why you don’t believe in the Southern states’ right to succession.

You may disagree with the rationale (preserving slavery), or its practicality (no world-striding great, old USA if the South leaves; then again, maybe we’d all be richer and more powerful if we’d stayed with the British all along). But that does not address succession as such. I believe in my right to revolt if a Stalin were to rise to power in America, but I don’t at all think Obama qualifies.


33 posted on 05/06/2009 11:21:49 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

At the time, there were 23 northern States and only 11 southern States. This meant that the option of calling a constitutional convention was out of the question for the South.

However, the southern States had been able to dominate the US Senate, and thus protect their interests. But that power was rapidly declining.

The greatest of the ironies was in the cotton trade. Until the invention of the cotton gin, slavery was only in the realm of the wealthy, a slave costing as much as a racing horse does today. More than half of slaves worked as domestics, and the institution was dying out.

But the cotton gin made slavery a middle class institution. Any man who could grow cotton could, in a year or two, earn enough money to purchase a slave. With the labor of that slave, the two men could produce enough cotton for the owner to buy other slaves. In short order, an entrepreneur could become wealthy.

However, the elimination of at least the pretense of respectability from slavery made it a far more loathsome proposition. Slaves lost any possibility of advancement, which had at least been held out as a possibility before, and became commodities.

And at the time, the international slave trade was mostly extinguished, meaning that “new slaves” had to come from “domestic stock”, children of slaves already living in the United States.

“The importation of African slaves was banned in the British colonies in 1807, and in the United States in 1808. In the British West Indies, slavery was abolished in 1833 and in the French possessions 15 years later.”

So the condition in the South was an unsupportable explosive growth market.


34 posted on 05/06/2009 11:25:17 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Or C), pokie the poster is once again demonstrating his preoccupation with deviant sexual practices...


35 posted on 05/06/2009 11:28:31 AM PDT by rockrr (Global warming is to science what Islam is to religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
The Judge references the 'popular vote'. You either didn't read the sentence correctly or you're practicing the standard NS MO of dishonest discourse.

But as the judge surely knows, popular vote doesn't elect presidents. It's possible that even you know that. Popular vote is also not a great indicator of margin of victory. Ronald Reagon won the election in 1980 with 50.75% of the popular vote, a bare plurality. But he took 91% of the popular vote and his election is seen as a landslide victory and a repudiation of Jimmy Carter. So by listing only the popular vote, Judge Napolitano was either trying to downplay the size of Lincoln's victory or, given the overall poor quality of the rest of his scholarship, it's more likely he never bothered to check the electoral vote margin to begin with.

This is killing you ain't it, NS. A well educated yankee judge validating all the arguments that I and others have been having with you for years.

Not at all. If anything the miserable quality of the work is making Napolitano look stupid.

36 posted on 05/06/2009 11:29:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

No. Stick with what YOU introduced. Prove to me and everyone else that slaves were the ONLY property he was referring to. Hell, prove that slaves were even PART of what he was referring to. I am not chasing YOUR stupid rabbit. It’s your quoted material. YOU prove that it means what the ADDED word makes it mean or drop it.

“I’m not aware of any made prior to or during the rebellion. You got any quotes from any of them?”

Nope. Don’t have to. The point stands. Common sense tells me these folks made many statements. Unless you can prove that they never said anything else in reference to the cause of the war, you can not claim that slavery was the ONLY reason, in their minds, for the war. But please, go ahead and try.


37 posted on 05/06/2009 11:33:04 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
And then you will have destroyed the idea that it was ALL about slavery. For how could it be all about slavery if he had gone so far to make war on a whole section of the country without addressing the slavery issue.

But there are two sides to the issue and you're looking at only one side. On the one side there's Lincoln and the Union, and for him it never was about slavery and he said so on many occasions. On the other hand you have the confederacy, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the fact that for them the single most important reason for going to war was to defend slavery.

In short Napolitano is wrong. The war was about slavery, he's just looking at it from the wrong side.

38 posted on 05/06/2009 11:34:43 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
No. Stick with what YOU introduced. Prove to me and everyone else that slaves were the ONLY property he was referring to.

OK, so if he never said the war was about anything else then how can I provide a quote to that effect? Tell me that.

Hell, prove that slaves were even PART of what he was referring to. I am not chasing YOUR stupid rabbit. It’s your quoted material. YOU prove that it means what the ADDED word makes it mean or drop it.

Sure you are. Otherwise you wouldn't be off on one of your mouth foaming rants. But scholarship isn't just a Northern tactic. You could provide your own quotes showing other points of view. Toombs and others blathered on about tariffs and such, even though evidence indicates the South actually imported little and paid less in tariffs. Go ahead and trot them out.

Nope. Don’t have to.

You mean, "Nope. Don't know any" don't you?

39 posted on 05/06/2009 11:39:17 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

The War Between the States was fought over numerous causes:

the centralization of power at the expense of the states’ constitutional protections;
the right of states to secede;
tarrifs;
and only much later, slavery.

Among other issues.

The key issues were the Constitutional rights of states and on that, the South was absolutely right.

As Dr. Walter E. Williams has said, if states don’t have the right to secede, then the constitutional protections of states’ rights mean nothing because the Federal government can do anything it wants and there is no way to stop it.

As for slavery, everyone admits that it was horrible and a black mark (no pun intended) on our history. But again, as Dr. Williams has noted, he is much better off today because his ancestors were brought here as slaves than he would be if they had been left in Africa.


40 posted on 05/06/2009 11:39:42 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

If it was about slavery, why didn’t the infamous emancipation proclamation, free the slaves in the US, instead of reintroducing slavery in conquered territory.
barbra ann


41 posted on 05/06/2009 11:44:26 AM PDT by barb-tex (Republic of Texas will include all of the Confederacy, except Maybe VA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

I believe you’re forgetting about “Fightin’ Joe” Johnston, who commanded the CSA for much of its life and was appointed Customs Commissioner post-war.


42 posted on 05/06/2009 11:47:16 AM PDT by laconic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

The civil war was largely about slavery and its extension.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments it seems to me that states had and have a right to secede.

However that became moot once Jefferson Davis ordered the attack on Fort Sumter.

Only Hirohito’s attack on Pearl Harbor compares with Jeff’s rash stupidity.

If instead Davis had petitioned the US Supreme Court to approve of succession, they likely would have ruled in his favor, and tied Lincoln’s hands.

It was and remains Jeff Davis’s war.


43 posted on 05/06/2009 11:48:18 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
That has nothing to do with the point at hand.

Well, yes it does. Napolitano takes Lincoln to task for opposing the Southern acts of secession, and compares them to the colonists. He claims that "the right of secession followed from the American Revolution as the colonists separated from the British Empire and declared their independence..." and forgets to mention that the colonists had to fight for that independence. So if he wants to make the comparison with the colonists then why is he so surprised that the Southern acts of 'secession' were opposed as well? Or that they had to fight for their independence?

Maybe it was a matter of “might makes right” when the colonists won independence.

But might was against the colonists. They were fighting one of the strongest countries on earh and they beat them. The confederates couldn't accomplish that.

You may disagree with the rationale (preserving slavery)...

Not at all. What I disagree with is the way the confederate supportes seem embarassed by slavery and are willing to go to any lengths to avoid admitting it was about slavery.

...or its practicality (no world-striding great, old USA if the South leaves; then again, maybe we’d all be richer and more powerful if we’d stayed with the British all along).

No, I'm glad that the United States remained whole and unbroken because that is how our Founding Father's had left it to us.

But that does not address succession as such. I believe in my right to revolt if a Stalin were to rise to power in America, but I don’t at all think Obama qualifies.

And I am not going to disagree with you. But tell me where it says that you have the right to revolt and Stalin or Obama or whoever is not supposed to oppose you.

44 posted on 05/06/2009 11:49:15 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane; mo; All
Lincoln was a lawyer with a background in railroad and shipping cases before he got into politics. There's no doubt in my mind that his agenda in Washington -- first and foremost -- was based on the idea that the sovereignty of states should be eradicated and made subservient to the interests of the modern "super-state" (i.e., the Federal government).

It's no coincidence that this all took place within a decade of similar nationalist movements all over the world -- including the unification of Prussia under Bismarck, the creation of Italy under Garibaldi, the formal Confederation of Canada, etc.

45 posted on 05/06/2009 11:50:27 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

OK. So Longstreet was bitter after the war.

What then was the issue of the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, when he gave the Cornerstone speech?

You remember that one, right?

Here’s an excerpt: “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”

The last sentence is pretty clear, doncha think?


46 posted on 05/06/2009 11:50:46 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
The fact that Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" didn't apply to the "border states" like Maryland pretty much puts the whole idea of slavery as the driving purpose of the Civil War to rest.

Even the famed orator and former slave Frederick Douglass acknowledged as much in his infamous "Independence Day" speech in Rochester in the early 1850s. His basic premise was that Independence Day didn't mean a damn thing to free black men in Union states.

47 posted on 05/06/2009 11:54:48 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Lincoln was a lawyer with a background in railroad and shipping cases before he got into politics. There's no doubt in my mind that his agenda in Washington -- first and foremost -- was based on the idea that the sovereignty of states should be eradicated and made subservient to the interests of the modern "super-state" (i.e., the Federal government).

Then you should have no problems providing quotes from Lincoln indicating that, should you?

It's no coincidence that this all took place within a decade of similar nationalist movements all over the world -- including the unification of Prussia under Bismarck, the creation of Italy under Garibaldi, the formal Confederation of Canada, etc.

And only eight decades after that nationalist movement that unified 13 colonies into a single country?

48 posted on 05/06/2009 12:05:29 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The fact that Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" didn't apply to the "border states" like Maryland pretty much puts the whole idea of slavery as the driving purpose of the Civil War to rest.

The fact that it would have been unconstitutional if it did apply to Maryland should tell you something as well, shouldn't it?

49 posted on 05/06/2009 12:07:09 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The irony is that both the Union and Confederate regions of the U.S. were pretty consistent in their attitudes towards state sovereignty even going back to the time these were British Colonies. If it weren’t for the strength and success of the colonial military campaigns in the Southern colonies there never would have been a United States of America to begin with. Much of what later became the dominant centers of the Union remained in British hands throughout the American Revolution (I’ll cite Boston and New York City as two perfect examples), and the fact that the Northeast has historically been one of the most radically leftist parts of the U.S. for generations would lead me to believe that the people in those places would have been perfectly content to remain under British rule.


50 posted on 05/06/2009 12:07:58 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-497 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson