Replies

From my own modern perspective I don’t like some things Lincoln did, even for his noble purpose. Terrible means were used to achieve good ends.

Don't you like how all totalitarians have noble purposes! I assume you think the noble purpose was to end slavery. But Lincoln kept that "purpose" a secret, didn't he. The idea the the WBTS was a war to end slavery was a post hoc justification as was the notion that slavery was the worst of all human conditions.

In fact there wasn't slavery only in the Southern Colonies, but pretty much all over the Western World in the 18th century. We were the only ones who ended it by killing the slave owners. Everywhere else it just died out with the rise of capitalism because slavery ddn't make economic sense.

They wanted the federal government to force Northern states to return escaped slaves after all!!!

Well gee, isn't that what the Northern States agreed to do? From Article IV of the United States Constitution:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The new GOP Congress passed a constitutional amendment that would have prevented the abolition of slavery by the federal government. Not good enough for them, they were concerned about not only keeping but spreading slavery to the new states and they didn’t give much of a damn how people in those new states may have felt.

Actually I think they wanted the people in new States to be able to decide for themselves.

What I wanted to tell you is how ridiculous it is to compare Lincoln to our horrible 20th and 21st Century socialist Presidents. Our first truly terrible President was Woodrow Wilson.

I know you think it is ridiculous. But that is because you suffer from a government education. Read Charles Adams' When in the Course of Human Events or at least read the first user review at the Amazon link I've included. Read Fremantle's Three Months in the Southern States. He was there. He wasn't a Southerner. But somehow government schools never assign this book, I think, because the picture Fremantle paints is so different from the one the winning side wanted you to have.

I stand by my assertion that Lincoln is the one who dismantled the Government of Jefferson and Madison. In response to this one Ivy Civil War Professor's reaction was, "Well, he had help." That's not much of a defense.

ML/NJ

LOL. I never met a Neo-Confederate from the North before. At least Southerners have an excuse, being told stories passed down from their grandfathers about how the Yankees came and burned their crops.

I assume you think the noble purpose was to end slavery

No, to keep the union together.

The idea the the WBTS was a war to end slavery was a post hoc justification

It was a war to save the union. The true historical revisionism is when the neo-Confederates bust out their absurd mental gymnastics and claim the formation of the CSA was about something other than the preservation and expansion of slavery, that's all it was about it. It was a "country" formed for a selfish purpose not for the "preservation of Jeffersonian ideals" or some such. They lie to themselves so they can admire the CSA without supporting slavery.

as was the notion that slavery was the worst of all human conditions.

Haha. How about you and your loved ones try being slaves for a week and you tell me what you think of it. I don't have any cotton but if you want to come over and clean my bathroom I'll be happy to oblige. I promise I won't violate your wife, we wouldn't want the experience to be too realistic would we? ;)

In fact there wasn't slavery only in the Southern Colonies, but pretty much all over the Western World in the 18th century. We were the only ones who ended it by killing the slave owners.

We were the only ones where the slave owners were politically powerful enough to when the future of slavery was threatened they could go ahead and try to form their own country. And like I said, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment which would have let the Southern states keep slaves for as long as they wanted. That still wasn't good enough for them. The vague wording of that amendment was a disaster and had it been ratified it would be used today to prop up gay marriage (and polygamy in Utah) but it was a last desperate attempt to avoid war. Avoid war was something the Southern states weren't interested in. Imagine California leaving the union in a snit because Obama loses reelection (I know maybe not such a bad idea ;d).

Well gee, isn't that what the Northern States agreed to do?

WELL GEE the Slave states insisted on that provision. They sure didn't care 1 iota about free state's "state rights" not to be complicit in slavery.

Actually I think they wanted the people in new States to be able to decide for themselves.

Unless they decided to be a free state. Which is why slave-supporters rushed across the border into Kansas solely to effect the elections there. They didn't want their power in Congress reduced by the addition of new free states.

I stand by my assertion that Lincoln is the one who dismantled the Government of Jefferson and Madison

By maintaining the unity of the nation they founded. Your argument makes a lot of sense ;D. The Constitution doesn't grant states the right to just leave. You can argue it's implicit but you have a tough case to prove.

I know you think it is ridiculous. But that is because you suffer from a government education.

Nah I didn't pay attention in government school. What I "suffer from" is the lack of a psychological need to believe the Confederacy was the side in the right. Why you, being a Northerner, have that need is a mystery to me.

Happy Christmas!