Lincoln’s War

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

[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.

[rockrr]

“71% Dixie. Your neck must be a just little rosy!”

[central_va]

I don’t view secession as an insurrection. A group of states doesn’t create their own Federal Government and Capitol declare independence to then turn around and invade the Country they just left. That wouldn’t make sense. Secession is the opposite of an insurrection.

[Rustabout]

**So what’s your opinion of the clause of the Constitution that allows insurrections to be suppressed?**

The unalienable rights; LIFE LIBERTY HAPPINESS “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed,…” “— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,…” “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,” “…and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Deo Vindice!

[Rustabout]

[central_va]

U make that?

[Non-Sequitur]

Please, don't set them on a tee, it's way to easy that way.

Oh give it your best shot. You've missed on every swing so far.

[Non-Sequitur]

I can't understand your reasoning, it is alien to me. I guess I will never understand.

I don't know why not, I've been perfectly clear. If any state or states goes to war agains the United States in order to further their separation, like they did in 1861, then I would willingly take up arms to defend my country. Period.

Do you really think the south was a credible threat militarily? It could not hope to conquer the North, and it never intended to.

Then they shouldn't have started a war they could not win, should they?

[Non-Sequitur]

“71% Dixie. Your neck must be a just little rosy!”

Jesus, don't scare me like that! I went back and took the whole test and got "21% Dixie. You are a dandy Yankee Doodle." I'll chalk up the Dixie influence to my time in the military.

[Non-Sequitur]

You are aware that John Deere is a Yankee company headquartered in Moline, Illinois, aren’t you?

[central_va]

Then they shouldn't have started a war they could not win, should they?

My understanding was a hope that the North would eventually tire and realize they were wrong and maybe Europe would inject themselves into the conflict. The fault lies in ever thinking that Yankees were capable of doing the right and moral thing. Might makes right? Not. The Illinois Butcher^TM was putting down a rebellion in the North at the same time fighting a war in the South. He was a good butcher, don't get me wrong.

[Non-Sequitur]

A group of states doesn’t create their own Federal Government and Capitol declare independence to then turn around and invade the Country they just left. That wouldn’t make sense.

Very little of the confederate cause in 1861 makes sense. Still, the fact remains that the confederate states chose war and paid the penalty for their actions.

[central_va]

You are aware that John Deere is a Yankee company headquartered in Moline, Illinois, aren’t you?

Who cares? Makes it all the more ridiculous, like destroying, burning and killing and calling it "preserving the Union".

[central_va]

Very little of the confederate cause in 1861 makes sense. Still, the fact remains that the confederate states chose war and paid the penalty for their actions.

The "She probably deserved it" defense.

[Non-Sequitur]

My understanding was a hope that the North would eventually tire and realize they were wrong and maybe Europe would inject themselves into the conflict.

They sure blew that one then, didn't they? The fact remains that had Davis not been so hell-bent for war but had waited Lincoln out instead, the confederacy would be an independent country today and we wouldn't be having these pleasant conversations.

The fault lies in ever thinking that Yankees were capable of doing the right and moral thing.

Sure. And had the U.S. done the right and moral thing and not declared war after that Pearl Harbor unplesantness then Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have been flattened.

The Illinois ButcherTM was putting down a rebellion in the North at the same time fighting a war in the South.

You must be directionally challenged this morning. The rebellion was in the South.

[central_va]

The New York Draft Riots (July 13 to July 16, 1863; known at the time as Draft Week[2]), were violent disturbances in New York City that were the culmination of discontent with new laws passed by Congress to draft men to fight in the ongoing American Civil War. The riots were the largest civil insurrection in American history apart from the Civil War itself.[3] President Abraham Lincoln sent several regiments of militia and volunteer troops to control the city. Although not the majority, many of those arrested had Irish names, according to the lists compiled by Adrian Cook in his "Armies of the Streets

[Non-Sequitur]

The "She probably deserved it" defense.

Well duh! If you choose to start a war and fail to win then yes, you deserve what you get. Japan started a war. Japan got it's ass kicked. I'm not losing any sleep over her losses, no matter what kind of guilt trip they try to lay over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Davis started a war. Davis lost his war. Boo-frickin-hoo.

[central_va]

Japan started a war. Japan got it's ass kicked

By this analogy then you are acknowledging that the South was a sovereign nation. Lincoln invaded sovereign nation, how nice. A sovereign nation that posed no military threat, Ft Sumter give me a break. A nation that tried to negotiated with the US but was rebuffed. They "didn't do it right" so f em, they are going down.

[cowboyway]

The fact is that Lincoln was popular enough to beat his nearest opponent by 10 percentage points

I wouldn't characterize 39% as 'popular', but keep on spinning, liar.

Your math skills are truly dazzling.

So are you spin skills. /sarc

But you're saying that in 1980 Reagan did not have a mandate, right?

You can hardly call just over 50% of the popular vote a resounding mandate.

If that's the case, then Obonga (the product of the loins of a Kansas woman) received a clear signal in November that the American people issued a mandate to socialize/communize the US.

[usmcobra]

You are being disingenuous when you say Ft. Sumter was the only federal asset that the confederates seized.

Every piece of military hardware south of the Mason Dixon line that belonged to the United States was seized by the confederates. I’m sure you will blithely justify it as some sort of recollection of tax revenue by the confederates for years of tariffs on cotton no doubt.

Or better yet some sort of justified thievery based upon self-preservation for a “nation” that never needed to be created in the first place.

[cowboyway]

Lincoln invaded sovereign nation, how nice.

"The solution devised by Lincoln triggered a war that would kill seven hundred thousand Americans. Advised by his top military commanders that an incoming ship would be considered a threat to Confederates and would prompt an attack, Lincoln deliberately sent a ship of food provisions as well as additional armed soldiers to Fort Sumter, South Carolina. The Confederates fell for the ploy and fired the first shot. Lincoln responded by sending armed warships and deployed a total of seventy-five thousand troops to invade all of the Southern states."

"His plan, however, did not go unnoticed. Northern newspapers were quick to inform the public that Lincoln had instigated the Fort Sumter incident. The Jersey City American Standard wrote, “there is a madness and ruthlessness” in Lincoln “which is astounding . . . this unarmed vessel . . . is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South, which act by the pre-determination of the government is to be the pretext for letting loose the horrors of war.” The Providence Daily Post also wrote, “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor.” These headlines and stories were replicated by other newspapers in the North. Lincoln’s plan to bring the country into a war was no longer a hidden political strategy."

It has been know since shortly after Sumter that Lincoln instigated the incident with full intent to start a shooting war but there are those yankee diehards/blowhards here on FR that will live in a state of denial until they draw their last breath.