Posted on 06/17/2017 6:14:26 PM PDT by plain talk
Hey dude, the right to independence as articulated in the Declaration of Independence does not include a "so long as we approve of your morality" clause.
The Union didn't invade to stop their slavery, the Union invaded to stop their independence from Washington D.C.
It would not have mattered if they had. Allowing them to get beyond the economic control of Washington D.C. and the New York "Robber Baron" power brokers, was not going to happen. One way or another, there would have been a war to stop them, because Washington D.C. and it's New York Crony Capitalism partners will never let go of a significant amount of money.
The South at the time earned 3/4ths of all Export Revenue for the United States. Too much money for the establishment to let go of peaceably.
Lincoln had no intention of avoiding it. He intended for it to happen. Had he intended to avoid it, he could have simply carried through on his decision to evacuate Ft. Sumter as the "National Republican" Newspaper reported at the time.
Third article at the top left.
Lincoln sent a war fleet with deliberate orders to attack the Confederates currently surrounding Ft. Sumter. It is the arrival of this fleet that precipitated the attack on Ft. Sumter.
So did the US Constitution, but the Northern states just ignored it. It's Article IV, section II, if you want to look it up.
No, the Union did indeed invade the South to collect the taxes and tariffs that they would have lost if the South had remained independent. That, and to make sure the South didn't steal the European trade away from New York.
238 Million dollars was a lot of money in 1860.
Found a whole new crew to spout your revisionist nonsense to I see. How nice for you.
Actually they did, it's just that everyone who wants to justify killing 750,000 people and destroying billions of dollars in assets and wrecking so many peoples lives, never bother to look up this information. They only look for stuff that supports what they want to believe.
Here is where they complain about the tariff's and taxes.
You should read it. You might gain some actual understanding of what was going on at the time.
Such nonsense
Congress was controlled by Southern democrats. They passed the economic programs they desired
Only 13, which is less than a third of what Lincoln hanged at one time. They were also Hanged for Treason. But you didn't mention that. For some reason you characterized them as "P.O.W."s instead of traitors.
But the prisoners taken by Pickett’s men at New Berne had an additional twist to their story, for they were accused of switching sides — serving in the Confederate Army, then deserting and fighting for the Northern cause.
By that sort of logic the Union could have, and by rebel standards should have, hanged every Confederate soldier they captured for treason.
And of course you neglect to mention the two pieces of evidence I have previously provided you regarding this claim.
That historians have left something out of the story is not at all new regarding the Civil War. I have found it to be incredibly common, especially if the books are published in the North East, as most such books are.
Perhaps they left it out because it reflected badly on Lincoln? CNN was doing that for the last 9 years regarding anything negative about that other Liberal Lawyer from Illinois who became President.
Who cares about that? The South practiced slavery when it was part of the Union, so that's irrelevant.
What does the Union declaration of War say about the issue of slavery? Does it mention it as a cause?
They couldn't even Hang Jeff Davis for Treason. I think that if they had attempted hanging Confederate soldiers for Treason, it would have backfired very badly in their own states.
The Soldiers which you clearly did not mention were traitors, were in fact as demonstrably traitorous as it is possible to be. They first fought for their own homeland, and then they joined the enemy forces to fight against their homeland.
Cut the crap for a change, will you? "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession and the President's War Powers" by James F. Simon - a man who has written five books on Supreme Court justices. "Life of Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court" by Bernard Christian Steiner. "Thunder on Capitol Hill: The Life of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney" by Alvin L. Schumacher and Dirk Gringhus. "Roger B. Taney" by Carl Brent Swisher. Four biographies of the Chief Justice. Not a single one makes the claim that Lincoln tried or even talked about arresting Taney.
So are you honestly saying that you believe that all these men conspired to suppress the evidence that Lincoln planned on arresting Taney? That they all plotted to protect Lincoln at the expense of the central figure of their biographies? Is that what you are honestly saying?
You aren't going to like the truth about Abraham Lincoln then. He was too.
http://www.chesnuttarchive.org/classroom/lynchings_table_state.html
All of these you listed were after the Civil War, which means they happened under the Union Flag. Prior to the Civil war, most Northern states simply sold any blacks they found "down the river" into slavery.
Lincoln himself was an officer in an organization dedicated to deporting blacks back to Africa or Brazil. Up to the Civil War, Illinois had laws preventing blacks from living in their state.
Maybe he foolishly thought their reason for leaving was slavery, and that this offered amendment would mollify them?
Since it didn't mollify them, apparently that wasn't their reason for leaving.
Slavery was legal in the Union for "four score and seven years" (actually a couple of years longer than that) so why did it just cause a war in 1861?
I also note that the Union didn't go to war with Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, or Tennessee, which were Northern slave states. If they were fighting to end slavery, why didn't they start with their own states?
Lincoln launched the war to prevent the South from trading directly with Europe. If normalized European trade with the South had been allowed to develop, it would have wrecked industries in the North East, and it would have severely hurt Washington D.C.'s money flow.
They fought over the money, not whether or not slavery should be abolished. That was something they came up with midway through the war, and then they kept selling it after the fact to justify what they had done.
Like the US and Canada? Yeah, that's been a source of constant tension since 1812. :)
The idea that the Civil War gave us big government is an exaggeration.
Not at all. The era after Lincoln was considered the worst period of corruption in American History. Big Government and Crony Capitalism were constantly scratching each others backs in an effort to enrich both Big Government and the Crony Capitalists.
Don't forget, Lincoln's political philosophy was "Mercantilism", and the 1860s saw the ascendance of this "Mercantilist" philosophy. The railroad land give away is a pretty good example of the sort of thing i'm talking about.
And do you really think that country founded on slavery -- whether the US or the CSA -- could be devoted to liberty for very long?
I think slavery would have eventually collapsed on it's own. As soon as the economic benefits of it waned, suddenly everyone in the South would have developed an instantaneous moral opposition to it.
Yes, i'm Cynical. :)
I'm saying they "dismissed" as "nonsense" evidence which they didn't wish to believe. Same as many of you do regarding this topic.
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.