America thinks the unthinkable: More than half of Trump voters and 41% of Biden supporters want red and blue states to SECEDE from one another and form two new countries, shock new poll finds

That right there is a lie. Lying is what you do.

LOL! I'm not even in your league in that respect.

LOL! I'm not even in your league in that respect.

Nonsense! You're a world class liar. You manage to mix it with a certain shrewish Karenness while you're at it.

The fight then is the same fight now. The *EVIL* side is the one controlling power in Washington

That’s true everywhere. Thieves control government and live by stealing. If the government is small, those pieces of don’t disturb the people too much, and people go with their lives.

In this context, "revisionism" is pointing out flaws in the official claims used to explain what was done and why.

Okay, now explain to your pals that they are the ones who are revisionists.

What possible reason could they have for holding onto slave states that would require them to abrogate their principles? My answer is easy and obvious. "Money."

Says the cynic. During the Civil War somebody wrote a story about you, "The Man Without a Country."

This is whistling past the graveyard. It was ratified by five northern states. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state and former governor of New York, guaranteed that the amendment would be ratified by New York. With New York's support, it would have been ratified by the surrounding states too, and add to that the 16 slave states, and the thing was virtually guaranteed to pass.

Maryland and Kentucky were union states but not Northern states. The Southern states were already gone or almost gone. The Northern tier of states weren't going to ratify. Work on a compromise amendment to reassure the South that the government wouldn't try to abolish slavery had been going on since the election. The amendment only got the required 2/3rds majority a few days before Lincoln took the oath of office. Buchanan approved of it and even signed it though he didn't have to. It wasn't Lincoln's project. The Amendment was bound to fail, but people who wanted keep the country together were willing to make the attempt.

So I have been constantly told, though Lincoln himself said repeatedly he would not do this and that he had no power to do this.

Slaveowners didn't believe him. They said over and over and over again that they didn't believe him. Do you really deny this? They saw a party that wasn't committed to slavery as a threat to slavery, and thought slavery would be more secure outside the union than inside it.

Presumably you are categorizing me as one of "their defenders", but I have repeatedly said that slavery would have ended when the social pressure against slavery within each state became greater than the economic benefit of slavery, and I have predicted that tipping point would have been reached between 20 and 80 years subsequent to 1860.

In other words, you are a defender of slavery.

It was nothing more than a failed attempt to save the Union. It never had a chance. The South knew this.

It was prima facia evidence that the North and the Republican Party were not abolitionist. Hell, it was prima facia evidence that they didn't really care about slavery. That was the first bargaining chip they were prepared to offer up. It was also prima facia evidence that slavery was not what was motivating the original 7 seceding states to go. Were it slavery, this would have satisfied their concerns. It did not.

And of course, Lincoln started the war - deliberately - by sending a heavily armed fleet of warships to invade Confederate territory

Judging from the declarations of secession, they had the confederacy fooled. Oh that's right, the confederacy was lying when they wrote it was about slavery.

No, they weren't lying. The states that did issue declarations of causes noted that the Northern states violated the constitution. They did violate the constitution. That much is clear. You do understand that the legal argument one makes for their position might not be what is actually motivating them right? People make arguments all the time citing one reason for why they are doing what they're doing even though everybody knows that's not the real reason why. Something else is actually motivating them.

The exact term Georgia used was "anti-slavery party". Anyone who can't see they referred to abolition must also struggle with what the meaning of "is" is.

Anyone who refuses to see the exact quotes from Republicans that they were not Abolitionists must also struggle with what the meaning of "is" is.

He was acknowledging racism. I don't deny there were racists in the North. I've conceded that Lincoln had to deal with this, and Frederick Douglas spelled that out.

Lincoln WAS one of those racists - a flaming one at that. So was Seward. So was pretty much everybody. So much for the myth of the virtuous North.

But the Republicans won and freed the slaves, and that's the bottom line.

But that's not why they started the war - that's the bottom line.

You've quoted three or four, and in President Lincoln's case he was talking out of both sides of his mouth to keep the Union together.

I've cited 3 or 4 of the most prominent including Lincoln. I've also cited several Newspapers which were their mouthpieces. I've also noted that actual Abolitionists could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote in elections. You are being willfully blind to reality at this point.

The Republicans abolished slavery. That's definitive. I won't say there's nothing more to say because I know you'll regurgitate more leftists propaganda.

The Republicans were not abolitionists. They were perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Its hilarious you think me citing the actual facts is somehow "propaganda" let alone "leftist". Take a look at who spouts PC Revisionism today. Here's a hint: it ain't those of us on the Right.

That's right, leftist propaganda. The dems are trying to stick us with their slave holding past, and I'm sure they appreciate all of the help you're trying to give them by accepting it on our behalf.

You're delusional. PC Revisionism like what you are spouting here comes from LEFTISTS in Academia. It is furthermore pushed by LEFTISTS in the media. Government is their god. They want all power centralized and concentrated in ever fewer hands. They despise the whole idea of states' rights. Leftists are always against decentralized power.

There's a reason they're trying to bury the confederate past, and it isn't because they're proud of it.

They are trying to obliterate the South's history for the same reason that they are trying to obliterate America's history. These are global socialists. I told you PCers they would move on to American symbols and leaders next way back in the 1990s. You lot assured me that I was nuts and it would never get to things like the stars and stripes, the Founding Fathers, American history, etc etc back then. Well look where we are today. Told ya so.

The abolitionists were at it long before the war even started. It didn't happen until AFTER the war because the confederates weren't going to give up their slaves otherwise.

It didn't happen until AFTER the war because the Republicans were not abolitionists. The US itself still had slavery. They didn't even get around to the EP which was a war measure until 2 years into the war. Even then Lincoln went miles out of his way to not include not only slaves in the North but also slaves in Confederate territory the Federals were then occupying. It only happened after the war because Republicans needed to tell all those voters in the North that their loved ones had been killed, maimed and crippled for some noble purpose other than just lining special interest groups' pockets.

Not the abolitionists.

Who were miniscule in number.

That the slaveholders' crimes didn't measure up to what the nazis and commies did doesn't make their crimes any less abominable.

Well on that we disagree. Chattel slavery was nowhere near as bad as mass extermination.

I understand the logistics of the slave trade, but that doesn't change the nature of the crimes committed against those taken.

Nobody is denying slavery was awful - even Chattel slavery which wasn't as bad as State Slavery.

So let me see if I understand you. Slavery is an abomination, but it was OK for the confederates to have slaves because it was legal.

You're trying to make a 21st century moral argument. No matter how much you and I abhor slavery today, the fact remains that most people in the West and in the US - and even in the Northern states - in the mid 19th century did not share our views. It was a different time. People's views and values were quite different....and before you say "but they abolitionists" they were a tiny minority seen as extremists by the vast majority. There were even people who believed in equality of the sexes and equality of religions and ethnic groups back then. They were a tiny minority too and were seen as extremists too.

The South didn't secede over slavery, even though that was their stated reason for seceding and they never freed their slaves until forced.

It was the legal grounds cited by 4 states which issued declarations of causes - not the whole South. The fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment shows that this is not what was really motivating them.

The abolitionists weren't actually anti-slavery.

strawman. I never said that. What I said is that the Republicans were not abolitionists. I stand by that. They weren't.

The Republicans weren't abolitionists even though they did free the slaves.

Correct. They freed the slaves AFTER the war. That does not make them abolitionists BEFORE The war. They did after all support slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.

The Republicans justified the CW by ending slavery to win the population over, even though only a tiny minority in the North cared about slavery.

No, they offered the fig leaf of ending slavery to try to salve the deep wounds the war caused even in the North. People naturally recoil at the idea that loved ones were killed or maimed for something so base as money. They always want to believe they are the "good" guys fighting for some noble cause.

And last but not least, both the Republicans and the confederacy lied about all of this being about slavery.

Do I have to explain to you again that people can make a legal argument that is perfectly valid even though the legal argument they make is not the real reason why they are doing something? Do you understand the concept of a pretext?

Does that cover it?

Yeah, that covers it.

Game. Set. Match.

It was prima facia evidence that the North and the Republican Party were not abolitionist. Hell, it was prima facia evidence that they didn't really care about slavery. That was the first bargaining chip they were prepared to offer up.

The first? It wasn't ratified until after most of the "slaveholding states" (their words) had seceded and the war had started.

It was also prima facia evidence that slavery was not what was motivating the original 7 seceding states to go. Were it slavery, this would have satisfied their concerns. It did not.

If they had intended to abolish slavery, they could have done it and taken that cause off the table. Why didn't they? Because that's what they were fighting for.

And of course, Lincoln started the war - deliberately - by sending a heavily armed fleet of warships to invade Confederate territory

Did those ships fire the first shot?

No, they weren't lying. The states that did issue declarations of causes noted that the Northern states violated the constitution. They did violate the constitution. That much is clear. You do understand that the legal argument one makes for their position might not be what is actually motivating them right? People make arguments all the time citing one reason for why they are doing what they're doing even though everybody knows that's not the real reason why. Something else is actually motivating them.

Did they free their slaves? No.

Anyone who refuses to see the exact quotes from Republicans that they were not Abolitionists must also struggle with what the meaning of "is" is.

From Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph

Lincoln WAS one of those racists - a flaming one at that. So was Seward. So was pretty much everybody. So much for the myth of the virtuous North.

I never said the North was virtuous. I even conceded that President Lincoln had to work with that. Being a product of his times, he may have had to overcome that in himself. Which he did, as Frederick Douglas said.

From Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph

But calling the North racists when it was the South who held slaves until forced by the North to free them is beyond absurd. Let's see what their declarations of secession said about blacks.

From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".

From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".

From Texas: "She (Texas) 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"

Also from Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." So much for your claim the "Yankees" weren't abolitionists.

Another from Texas: "that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

None of these were fully legal justifications, so why would they make these statements if they didn't believe them?

But that's not why they started the war - that's the bottom line.

Then why did they fire on Fort Sumter?

I've cited 3 or 4 of the most prominent including Lincoln. I've also cited several Newspapers which were their mouthpieces. I've also noted that actual Abolitionists could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote in elections. You are being willfully blind to reality at this point.

I suppose ten or twelve snippets tell the whole story. Here's a snippet from Frederick Douglas, who I remind you was an escaped slave.

From Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph

The Republicans were not abolitionists.

From the Republicans in 1856: "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

I'll also repeat what the declarations of secession said.

From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".

From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".

From Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Take a look at who spouts PC Revisionism today. Here's a hint: it ain't those of us on the Right.

Nope, it's the same party that fought to preserve slavery and is now trying to bury their historic role in defending it, and it starts with a "D".

You're delusional. PC Revisionism like what you are spouting here comes from LEFTISTS in Academia. It is furthermore pushed by LEFTISTS in the media. Government is their god. They want all power centralized and concentrated in ever fewer hands. They despise the whole idea of states' rights. Leftists are always against decentralized power.

The revisionism is that they want to stick us, the right, with their history. You're only helping them.

They are trying to obliterate the South's history for the same reason that they are trying to obliterate America's history. These are global socialists. I told you PCers they would move on to American symbols and leaders next way back in the 1990s. You lot assured me that I was nuts and it would never get to things like the stars and stripes, the Founding Fathers, American history, etc etc back then. Well look where we are today. Told ya so.

The only thing they're trying to obliterate is their own history. I agree with you it should be preserved as a reminder of what we never want to happen again, but if they don't want the statues in their cities, then what can anyone do about it?

It didn't happen until AFTER the war because the Republicans were not abolitionists. The US itself still had slavery. They didn't even get around to the EP which was a war measure until 2 years into the war.

I know I'm going to set you off on a rant about the North's poor military leadership early in the war and you'll be right, but President Lincoln waited until the North had won a solid victory before announcing the EP. It had nothing to do with not wanting to abolish slavery.

Even then Lincoln went miles out of his way to not include not only slaves in the North but also slaves in Confederate territory the Federals were then occupying. It only happened after the war because Republicans needed to tell all those voters in the North that their loved ones had been killed, maimed and crippled for some noble purpose other than just lining special interest groups' pockets.

Even though most in the North were racists who opposed abolition, is that what you're saying?

Not the abolitionists. Who were miniscule in number.

There were enough of them that President Lincoln sold the abolition of slavery as the purpose of the war, as you've been saying. You can't have it both ways. If they were a teeny, tiny, minority, the President Lincoln wouldn't have used abolition to sell the war to the North.

Well on that we disagree. Chattel slavery was nowhere near as bad as mass extermination.

I'll clarify. That the slaveholders' crimes didn't measure up to what the nazis and commies did doesn't make their crimes of taking slaves any less abominable if the Holocaust hadn't happened.

You're trying to make a 21st century moral argument. No matter how much you and I abhor slavery today, the fact remains that most people in the West and in the US - and even in the Northern states - in the mid 19th century did not share our views. It was a different time. People's views and values were quite different....and before you say "but they abolitionists" they were a tiny minority seen as extremists by the vast majority. There were even people who believed in equality of the sexes and equality of religions and ethnic groups back then. They were a tiny minority too and were seen as extremists too.

Then why would President Lincoln use their cause to justify the war? You still haven't explained that.

It was the legal grounds cited by 4 states which issued declarations of causes - not the whole South. The fact that they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment shows that this is not what was really motivating them.

No one even ratified that amendment until after the war had already started, and it never came close to ratification. It was a last ditch attempt to save the Union. It never had a chance and the confederacy knew it, which is why they rejected it.

strawman. I never said that. What I said is that the Republicans were not abolitionists. I stand by that. They weren't.

From the Republicans in 1856: "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".

From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".

From Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Correct. They freed the slaves AFTER the war. That does not make them abolitionists BEFORE The war. They did after all support slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.

I see. There were no abolitionists before the war to pander to. OK.

No, they offered the fig leaf of ending slavery to try to salve the deep wounds the war caused even in the North. People naturally recoil at the idea that loved ones were killed or maimed for something so base as money. They always want to believe they are the "good" guys fighting for some noble cause.

Why would they offer abolishing slavery if the people were against it or didn't care?

Do I have to explain to you again that people can make a legal argument that is perfectly valid even though the legal argument they make is not the real reason why they are doing something? Do you understand the concept of a pretext?

No, but you have to explain why they kept their slaves if it wasn't about preserving slavery.

The first? It wasn't ratified until after most of the "slaveholding states" (their words) had seceded and the war had started.

Yes, first. They rolled over and offered slavery forever immediately. They voted for it with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority after the delegation from the original 7 seceding states had withdrawn.If they had intended to abolish slavery, they could have done it and taken that cause off the table. Why didn't they? Because that's what they were fighting for.

Who said they intended to abolish slavery? Nobody said that. You simply cannot address the fact that the Republicans/North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and the original 7 seceding states turned down that offer.

Did those ships fire the first shot?

The aggressor is one who invades the territory of another.

Did they free their slaves? No.

Does your argument make sense? No.

From Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph

I don't care what some nauseating hagiography says. Lincoln himself was perfectly clear. He was no abolitionist.

I never said the North was virtuous. I even conceded that President Lincoln had to work with that. Being a product of his times, he may have had to overcome that in himself. Which he did, as Frederick Douglas said. From Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph

I don't care what some nauseating hagiography says. Lincoln himself was no abolitionist and was a flaming racist. He was trying to deport Blacks right up until his death.

But calling the North racists when it was the South who held slaves until forced by the North to free them is beyond absurd. Let's see what their declarations of secession said about blacks. Blah Blah Blah So much for your claim the "Yankees" weren't abolitionists.

Here's what many Yankees themselves were saying:

"Our people hate the Negro with a perfect if not a supreme hatred" said Congressman George Julian of Indiana. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois conceded that 'there is a very great aversion in the West--I know it to be so in my State--against having free negroes come among us. Our people want nothing to do with the negro.' The same could be said of many soldiers. . . ." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 275)

The same Congress that imposed Reconstruction on the South after the war also imposed racist policies on the American Indians "The same Congress that devised Radical Reconstruction . . . approved strict segregation and inequality for the Indian of the West." (Catton, editor, The National Experience, p. 416)

"So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death. In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle". -Alexis De Tocqueville, "Democracy in America", Harper & Row, 1966, p.343.

Ohio Republican Senator John Sherman, (brother of William T. Sherman): “We do not like the Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike…..The whole people of the Northwestern states are opposed to having many Negroes among them and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all of the Northwestern states.”

William Seward, inveterate moralizer and creator of the phrase “irrepressible conflict,” who, at a political rally in 1860, described the American black man as a “foreign and feeble element like the Indians, incapable of assimilation…a pitiful exotic unwisely and unnecessarily transplanted into our fields, and which it is unprofitable to cultivate at the cost of the desolation of the native vineyard.”

On July 12, 1848, during a Senate debate over slavery in the territories, it was a New York Senator, John Dix, who got up and said that “free blacks would continue to be an inferior cast and simply die out.” It was a Senator from Mississippi named Jefferson Davis who replied that he was “horrified” to hear “their extinction treated as a matter of public policy.”

"the Prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the states where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers and white painters will not work side by side with blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern state." Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America

This from Lincoln: "There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them"

Even the chief PC Revisionist James McPherson was forced to admit it. "The problem with this lofty rhetoric of dying to make men free was that in 1861 the North was fighting for the restoration of a slaveholding Union. In his July 4 message to Congress, Lincoln reiterated the inaugural pledge that he had 'no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.'" (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 265)

So much for your claims that Republicans were abolitionists.

But that's not why they started the war - that's the bottom line. Then why did they fire on Fort Sumter?

Lincoln started the war when he sent a heavily armed fleet to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory. South Carolina was forced to fire to drive the invaders away.

I suppose ten or twelve snippets tell the whole story. Here's a snippet I've posted 3 times already but am desperate to spam you with again because I have nothing else. Blah Blah Blah

They aren't "snippets". These are the statements of numerous Republican politicians of the era as well as the largest newspapers. There is also the fact that abolitionists received a pathetically small share of the vote in one election after another.

From the Republicans in 1856: "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

In the territories. We've already covered this.

I'll also try to spam you with the same statements from the declarations of causes I've tried to spam you with a dozen times already.

We've covered this several times already. The Republicans were not abolitionists as they themselves said over and over again.

Nope, it's the same party that fought to preserve slavery and is now trying to bury their historic role in defending it, and it starts with a "D".

Correct! PC Revisionism comes from Leftist Democrats today. They are the ones who started pushing the "all about slavery" BS in the 1980s. People like Howard Zinn, James McPherson, etc etc.

The revisionism is that they want to stick us, the right, with their history. You're only helping them.

No. The revisionism is the "all about slavery" myth they try to spread and their attempts to deny the fact that the Southern states were being screwed over economically and wanted out for that reason. You help them by supporting their completely BS arguments.

The only thing they're trying to obliterate is their own history. I agree with you it should be preserved as a reminder of what we never want to happen again, but if they don't want the statues in their cities, then what can anyone do about it?

Today's Democrat Party is not the same as the Democrat Party of the mid 19th century. Hell, the Democrats used to be for limited government, balanced budgets, states' rights/decentralized power and a non interventionist foreign policy. They are the exact opposite of that today. They hate the South in particular with a visceral hatred because the South is the heart of the Conservative movement.

I know I'm going to set you off on a rant about the North's poor military leadership early in the war and you'll be right, but President Lincoln waited until the North had won a solid victory before announcing the EP. It had nothing to do with not wanting to abolish slavery.

It was a war measure. It wasn't some moral gesture. As the English (who by then were real abolitionists having abolished slavery in 1838 noted: "The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." --London Spectator, 1862

Even though most in the North were racists who opposed abolition, is that what you're saying?

Yes. People were desperate to believe there was some "noble" cause for which their loved ones had been sacrificed. They were prepared to latch onto just about anything. This was hardly unique to the Northern states circa 1865. There is no question they were not in favor of abolitionism beforehand. Hell, there were major riots when it was announced. Federal troops had to be brought in to quell the riots in New York City they were so bad. There was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." James McPherson For Cause and Comrades; Why Men Fought in the Civil War.

There were enough of them that President Lincoln sold the abolition of slavery as the purpose of the war, as you've been saying. You can't have it both ways. If they were a teeny, tiny, minority, the President Lincoln wouldn't have used abolition to sell the war to the North.

No. That is not what I said. Lincoln didn't do any such thing. After the war....AFTER....that would be AFTER Lincoln was dead....Republicans tried to argue that secession had been "all about slavery" because they didn't want to admit it had been about money for obvious domestic political reasons....they also didn't want to openly admit they had been fleecing the Southern states economically and now were doing so to an even greater degree than before with the crushing Morrill Tariff which set tariff rates at an eye watering 54%.

I'll clarify. That the slaveholders' crimes didn't measure up to what the nazis and commies did doesn't make their crimes of taking slaves any less abominable if the Holocaust hadn't happened.

Nobody is arguing chattel slavery was good. I would note the slave trade was worse than chattel slavery itself but obviously both were abominable by our modern standards - though views in the mid 19th century were different.

Then why would President Lincoln use their cause to justify the war? You still haven't explained that.

HE didn't - as I said above.

No one even ratified that amendment until after the war had already started, and it never came close to ratification. It was a last ditch attempt to save the Union. It never had a chance and the confederacy knew it, which is why they rejected it.

Lincoln only sent it to the states a few weeks before he started the war. It did not come close to ratification because the original 7 seceding states rejected it. Thus Lincoln did not push it nearly as much as he had been. You can say it was a last ditch attempt to save the union. It failed because the original 7 seceding states were not really motivated by protection of slavery. They were motivated by wanting to take control over tax and trade policy so as to stop getting screwed over for others' benefit......ie the actual cause of secession and the actual reason Lincoln started the war.

Here I'm going to spam you with the exact same quote I've used a dozen times at least about how the Republicans did not want slavery spread to the territories.

Being against the spread of slavery is not the same thing as advocating abolition everywhere. We've gone over this.

I see. There were no abolitionists before the war to pander to. OK.

I didn't say there were no abolitionists before the war. I said they were a tiny minority. I stand by that. They were a tiny minority. They were not pandered to then.

Why would they offer abolishing slavery if the people were against it or didn't care?

Because what else could they say? That they had waged a war of aggression for money and empire? Could they say that people's loved ones were killed or had arms or legs blown off so that their corporate supporters who funded their campaigns could make more profit? Those things happen to be true but people don't want to hear that. People never want to be told they fought a war for money even though most wars are about........money.

No, but you have to explain why they kept their slaves if it wasn't about preserving slavery.

Your argument makes no sense. Why would they abolish slavery? Nobody had. The North wasn't threatening to abolish slavery. There were still slave states which stayed in the Union.

Last paragraph Made me chuckle....out loud ...woke my rib up

We just got back from seeing Stones at Nissan in music city

She was 16 again for a few hours....not 55

Our youngest aged 14 went too and loved it....it was so much fun....amazing how they do it...played 2:20 minutes ....not too bad

We’re in good mood

Woodpusher....you just made a good night even better God love ya

*how can Bro criticize cut and paste

** I saw that post he made recently whereby he said GOPe was abolition party...I said then...whoa...someone will pick up on that huge faux pas

Yes, first. They rolled over and offered slavery forever immediately.

The amendment could have been repealed at any time, so unless you want to tell me the slave holding states would NEVER have voted to repeal it, it wouldn't have been permanent.

So go ahead and admit the slave holding states would not have voted to repeal it.

Who said they intended to abolish slavery?

From the Republicans in 1856: "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".

From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".

From Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

And before you go into another rant about how this was their legal justifcation based on constitutional law, I'm answering your question about who said.

Does your argument make sense? No.

The confederacy didn't give up their slaves until forced to do so, true or false?

I don't care what some nauseating hagiography says.

Do you care what someone with first hand knowledge of being a slave, escaping slavery, being an abolitionist, and dealing with President Lincoln said? I guess not.

Here's what many Yankees themselves were saying:

I don't deny there was rascism in the North. No one does. Even Frederick Douglas whose oration I posted to you acknowledges that, and added that President Lincoln had to work with it.

But when the chips were down, the Republicans followed through and abolished slavery, and the confederacy didn't give up their slaves until forced to do so. That's all that matters.

"I (president Lincoln) have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

When he originally made that quote, he had no power to abolish slavery. If I'm correct your quote came later, when he was trying to keep those who were not committed to abolition in the camp. Yes I admit that. I've admitted it several times. Everyone in the North was not in favor of abolition, and he had to speak out of both sides of his mouth to keep them on board.

When he finally got the power to abolish slavery, he did it.

Lincoln started the war when he sent a heavily armed fleet to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory. South Carolina was forced to fire to drive the invaders away.

The waters and the Fort were federal property, although I'm sure the confederacy didn't see it that way.

There is also the fact that abolitionists received a pathetically small share of the vote in one election after another.

From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".

Who was the "they" whose candidate the nation elected President?

Correct! PC Revisionism comes from Leftist Democrats today.

They want to stick us with their history.

They are the ones who started pushing the "all about slavery" BS in the 1980s. People like Howard Zinn, James McPherson, etc etc.

Started this "all about slavery" in the 1980s? let's see about that.

From Georgia: "or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."

Also from Georgia: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

From Mississippi: "It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."

From South Carolina: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery"

Today's Democrat Party is not the same as the Democrat Party of the mid 19th century. Hell, the Democrats used to be for limited government, balanced budgets, states' rights/decentralized power and a non interventionist foreign policy.

That's partially true, but the states rights they were fighting for was the right to keep their slaves, and the limited government was the feds leaving their slave holding rights alone. Do I need to post those snippets from the declarations of secession again?

It was a war measure. It wasn't some moral gesture. As the English (who by then were real abolitionists having abolished slavery in 1838 noted: "The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." --London Spectator, 1862

So why would President Lincoln have used abolition as a moral gesture if the North wasn't in support of abolition? You yourself posted a quote which says the opposite. You have explained that they couldn't say their sons were killed for money and empire and that's fair enough, but why say it was for something that they opposed? You have yet to explain that.

No. That is not what I said. Lincoln didn't do any such thing. After the war....AFTER....that would be AFTER Lincoln was dead....

From the Republicans in 1856: "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".

From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".

From Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

All of the above was said BEFORE the war...BEFORE.

though views in the mid 19th century were different.

You keep trying to hide behind that excuse, but there were enough people in the 1860s who understood slavery was wrong to get it abolished.

Here I'm going to spam you with the exact same quote I've used a dozen times at least about how the Republicans did not want slavery spread to the territories. Being against the spread of slavery is not the same thing as advocating abolition everywhere. We've gone over this.

From the Republicans in 1856: "that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".

From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".

From Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Show me in these quotes where it wasn't about abolition.

The amendment could have been repealed at any time, so unless you want to tell me the slave holding states would NEVER have voted to repeal it, it wouldn't have been permanent.

As we've already gone over, it could never have been repealed without the consent of the states in which slavery was still legal. As in NEVER. The math simply does not work. It doesn't work even today. Everybody understood that. (in order to obtain their consent the federal government would have had to offer a generous compensated emancipation scheme like practically every other country in the western world did to get rid of slavery).

So go ahead and admit the slave holding states would not have voted to repeal it.

OF COURSE they would not have voted to repeal it without a generous compensated emancipation scheme. That's the whole point. When the Northern states got rid of slavery, they did so slowly and via grandfather clauses usually (ie when a slave reaches the age of 27, 25, 30, etc). This gave slave owners in those states plenty of time to sell their slaves out of state or to someone who would take them out of state. ie slave owners in the Northern states got the chance to dispose of their "property" without taking a financial loss. Well now those states could have demanded the federal government would have had to compensate slave owners in their states such that the slave owners did not suffer a financial loss.

From the Republicans in 1856: here I am going to spam you with the same quote about the territories I've been using and I'm going to try to pretend that that somehow supported abolition....even though it clearly did not.

We've gone over this. Get some new material. It would be helpful if the new material said what you are trying to claim it said unlike the previous quote.

Here I am going to spam you with the same quotes from the declarations of secession which we've gone over a million times already.

And before you go into another rant about how this was their legal justifcation based on constitutional law, I'm answering your question about who said.

The Republicans themselves said over and over again they were not abolitionists. Mississippi is obviously wrong in saying the Republicans supported equality. They did not and nowhere in the Northern states were Blacks treated equally. In fact the "Black Codes" on the books there were brutally discriminatory.

The confederacy didn't give up their slaves until forced to do so, true or false?

With some exceptions like those who served in the Confederate Army and their families and with the understanding that the CSA empowered a representative with plenipotentiary power (meaning it would have the force of law) to agree to a treaty under which slavery would be banned in the CSA in exchange for British and French recognition and military aid....true, the CSA did not emancipate its slaves as a whole. and?

Do you care what someone with first hand knowledge of being a slave, escaping slavery, being an abolitionist, and dealing with President Lincoln said? I guess not.

No. I care what Lincoln himself said and did.

But when the chips were down, the Republicans followed through and abolished slavery, and the confederacy didn't give up their slaves until forced to do so. That's all that matters.

"when the chips were down"? You mean after the war when Republicans were desperate for some kind of fig leaf to offer the families of the bereaved up North.

When he originally made that quote, he had no power to abolish slavery. If I'm correct your quote came later, when he was trying to keep those who were not committed to abolition in the camp. Yes I admit that. I've admitted it several times. Everyone in the North was not in favor of abolition, and he had to speak out of both sides of his mouth to keep them on board.

He wasn't "speaking out of both sides of his mouth". Abolitionists were incredibly few in number. They need not have been appeased and they were not. It wasn't just that Lincoln believed himself to have no power to emancipate all slaves. He also had no inclination to do so as he said. He was no abolitionist and said that many many times. And by the way, no he did not emancipate all the slaves. That came via constitutional amendment after he was dead.

When he finally got the power to abolish slavery, he did it.Only as a war measure and even then he was very meticulous in making sure he did not free any slaves in areas controlled by the union army.

The waters and the Fort were federal property, although I'm sure the confederacy didn't see it that way.,/p>

The land and the waters around it were the sovereign territory of the state of South Carolina.

From Georgia: here I am going to spam you with the exact same crap I've posted at least 20 times already. Who was the "they" whose candidate the nation elected President?

The Northern states.

They want to stick us with their history.

They want to rewrite history to suit their Leftist politics. They want to twist and distort history to try to make us ashamed of our past rather than to celebrate our ancestors. That way there would be far less resistance to their promises of a centralized socialist utopia under their control of course. Its the same reason they are trying to trash US history and why they tear down statues. "deconstructionism". They STARTED this crap by first trying it with the South and its history.

Started this "all about slavery" in the 1980s? let's see about that. Here I'm going to spam you with the exact same crap I've posted going on 25 times now.

Yes. The PC Revisionists have revived Northern wartime and immediate post war propaganda.....things that had long long since been dropped from the history curricula. Go back and see what most historians even in Academia were saying from the early 20th century right through to the 1980s. Its very different from what the PC Revisionists say. Its very different from what you will see from Academia and Leftist Hollywood today.

That's partially true, but the states rights they were fighting for was the right to keep their slaves, and the limited government was the feds leaving their slave holding rights alone. Do I need to post those snippets from the declarations of secession again?

It has always been nothing more than Yankee and later Leftist propaganda to say states rights was "all about slavery". No it was not. It was not before the mid 19th century when slavery became a big political issue and has not been since then. States' rights is about the original constitution. Its about exercising local control. Its about bringing power as far down to the people as possible so that local communities can exert more democratic power and influence over government to make it more responsive to their needs. Its about thwarting would be tyrants who want to concentrate power in their own hands as much as possible.

So why would President Lincoln have used abolition as a moral gesture if the North wasn't in support of abolition?

He didn't. YOU are trying to spin it that way.

You yourself posted a quote which says the opposite.

Which quote?

You have explained that they couldn't say their sons were killed for money and empire and that's fair enough, but why say it was for something that they opposed? You have yet to explain that.

Now you are talking about the postwar period. After the war people had come to accept that slavery was at an end. Incidentally that is why the Southern states agreed to ratify the 13th amendment with their own democratically elected representatives before the voters there were disenfranchised and occupation governments were installed. The vast majority in the North had not been abolitionists pre-war. After the war it became the reason for the "great moral crusade" at least that is what they told themselves to make the horrendous losses more acceptable to them.

From the Republicans in 1856: "here I'm going to spam you with the exact same crap I've spammed you with 26 times already which does not say what I'm trying to claim it says." All of the above was said BEFORE the war...BEFORE.

And NONE of it supports abolition of slavery in the states where it exists. NONE.

You keep trying to hide behind that excuse, but there were enough people in the 1860s who understood slavery was wrong to get it abolished.

Its not "an excuse". Its reality. Slavery was only abolished after the horrendously bloody war which was fought for other reasons.

:"Here I'm going to spam you with the exact same crap I've spammed you with 27 times already...the crap which does not say what I'm trying to claim it says ie that the North or that Republicans were abolitionists. They clearly weren't."

Show me in these quotes where it wasn't about abolition.

"Lincoln remained unmoved. . . . 'I think Sumner [abolitionist Charles Sumner] and the rest of you would upset our applecart altogether if you had your way,' he told the Radicals. . . . 'We didn't go into this war to put down slavery . . . and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith.' Vindication of the president's view came a few weeks later, when the Massachusetts state Republican convention--perhaps the most Radical party organization in the North--defeated a resolution endorsing Fremont's proclamation." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76, emphasis added)

"There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them" Abraham Lincoln's inaugural Address

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois December 22, 1860

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Abraham Lincoln

"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?” Abraham Lincoln

"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.” -Abraham Lincoln

“anything that argues me into . . . [the] idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . . I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, pp. 511-512)

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." Abraham Lincoln

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ... Abraham Lincoln

Those are not the words of a guy merely "going along with" racists. That is a guy who himself is a racist.....a hardcore flaming racist. He also made it very clear numerous times - as in the above quotes and plenty of others - that he was no abolitionist.

The question answered below is: why did Jefferson Davis chose war at Fort Sumter?
The answers are taken from this link.

We begin with enumerated's explanation:

enumerated: "The South did not start the War of Northern Aggression.
The cause was a host of economic and political aggressions by the North, and finally, the North’s refusal to peacefully accept secession."

First, just so we're clear, there were three major events, with three separate lists of "reasons why".
Those three major events were:

The first seven secessions before Fort Sumter, with "Reasons why" listed in one Ordinance (Alabama's), four official documents plus two unofficial but well known apologies -- Robert Rhett & Alexander Stephens.
The beginning of Civil War at Fort Sumter, about which our Lost Causers try to claim that, 1) Confederate demands for surrender and then 2) assaulting Fort Sumter were not really Jefferson Davis' fault, but rather Lincoln's.
Here is the best explanation I’ve seen.
After Fort Sumter, secession of four Upper South states plus attempted secession of slaveholders in three Border States.
Virginia’s explanation is here.
Here are all thirteen Ordnances of Secession.
No Ordinance mentions slavery itself by name, though three (AL, MO, KY) refer to their “domestic institutions”, code for slavery.

Pres. Buchanan’s refusals to surrender Fort Sumter.
Source: McClintock, “Lincoln and the Decision for War” c2008

On December 8, 1860 Pres. Buchanan reminded South Carolina’s congressional delegation that disposition of Federal properties, such as Fort Sumter, was constitutionally a matter for Congress to decide.
[McClintock p86]
In mid-December 1860 Lincoln sent word to Gen. Scott: ”I shall be obliged to him to be as well prepared as he can be to either hold, or retake, the forts, as the case may require, at, and after, the inauguration.”
[McClintock p88]
On December 21, 1860 Pres. Buchanan issued orders authorizing Maj. Anderson to move his garrison to Fort Sumter, if necessary.
Anderson immediately moved from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
[McClintock p107]
In December 1860 most Northern Democrats decided in favor of Union and support for Maj. Anderson in Fort Sumter:
December 30, 1860: Pres. Buchanan responds to South Carolina demands for surrender of Fort Sumter that an attack on Fort Sumter would mean war.
After the January 9 firing on Buchanan’s civilian supply ship Star of the West, Northern state legislatures condemned it and offered military support to the Federal government.
On January 13 Buchanan told South Carolina’s envoy there would be no surrender of Fort Sumter.
In early February, Buchanan again rejected another South Carolina demand to surrender Fort Sumter.

Confederates considered their demands for fort surrenders matters of sovereignty, since they were already seizing dozens of other forts, ships, arsenals & mints, etc., without serious Union opposition, so Forts Sumter & Pickens remained the last major Federal properties in the Confederacy.
However, the decision to assault Fort Sumter was Jefferson Davis' and some now claim Lincoln "tricked" Davis.
But the truth is, Davis knew exactly what he was doing and chose war rather than waiting for negotiated settlements.

Davis’ reasons start here:

”Secession had been stopped at seven states.
The nascent confederacy was relatively tiny.
"At the very least, as the most modest of the Southern imperialists envisaged it, the full-grown Confederacy would have to include Virginia, Maryland, and other slaveholding states of the Upper South and the border."
[Richard N. Current, _Lincoln and the First Shot,_ p. 131]
“The Virginia convention voted 89-45 against secession on 4 April.
"Thus, in early April, it appeared that (unless something drastic were done) the Confederacy was doomed to carry on, if possible, as a mere string of seven states, an aborted empire.”
"What was worse, it appeared that, given time, one or more of the seven might abandon the Confederacy and return to the Union.
If, in the lower South, true Unionists or 'reconstructionists' were few, they were nevertheless too numerous to suit the thoroughgoing, fire-eating secessionists.
Especially in Alabama, the home state of the Confederate government, reconstructionism in one guise or another seemed a threat to Southern independence.
"The outstanding secessionist, William L. Yancey, a resident of Montgomery, had failed to win election to the Confederate Congress.
In one Alabama town this 'fire-eater' had, in a sense, actually eaten fire: he had been burned in effigy.”
Confederate newspapers warned of trouble:
'We are in danger,' the _Charleston Mercury_ warned (March 25), 'of being dragged back eventually to the old political affiliation with the states and people from whom we have just cut loose.' "
[Ibid., pp. 132-133]"
At the same time, another Confederate newspaper, the Mobile Mercury reported:
So, by March 1861, some Confederates were already saying their new country was in trouble if something weren't done about Fort Sumter.
And since January, ”Virginia was on record as saying she would join the confederacy if and when a war started:
”JOINT RESOLUTION concerning the position of Virginia in the event of the dissolution of the Union.
Adopted January 21, 1861.
‘Resolved by the General Assembly of Virginia, That if all efforts to reconcile the unhappy differences existing between the two sections of the country shall prove to be abortive, then, in the opinion of the General Assembly, every consideration of honor and interest demands that Virginia shall unite her destiny with the slave-holding States of the South.’
[OR Series IV, Vol. I, p. 77]”
”Davis had advisors who were urging him in that direction as well.
L.Q. Washington wrote:
‘I fear the present Virginia Convention will not pass an ordinance of secession unless a collision or war ensues; then public feeling will force them to it.
There is a majority of old Federal submissionists, who got in by pretending to be resistance men.’
[OR Series I, Vol I, pp. 263-264]
”One Alabamian had warned Davis,
”These are the words of Virginian Roger Pryor, who, speaking to a Charleston audience on April 10, 1861, said,
”That same day, Davis received a telegram from [Fire Eater] Louis T. Wigfall, urging,
”Davis was already looking to start the war at Fort Pickens in Florida, knowing in advance the Federals were not going to attack.
Of course, not every Confederate thought war would be a good idea.
”In the cabinet meeting, [CSA Secretary of State Robert] Toombs warned Davis that firing on Fort Sumter would inaugurate the Civil War.
’Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.’
[Robert Toombs to Jefferson Davis, quoted in W. A. Swanberg, _First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter,_ p. 286]
”But Davis knew this anyway.
He had predicted a civil war earlier.
”Davis went ahead and ordered the fort reduced.
It was actually a good strategic move.
It immediately brought 4 additional states into the confederacy, including, most critically, Virginia, and there had been a possibility of bringing a total of 7 in.
Had all those 7 come into the confederacy, there would have been no way for the Union to prevail.
Lincoln knew the border states were crucial.
So did Davis.
It unified the confederate populace and suppressed thoughts of reconstructionism as they rallied around the confederacy.
The malaise talk of March and early April ceased at once and was replaced with patriotic exhortations and renewed recruiting of young men into the army.
”… if we look at the total situation, the viewpoint that Davis ordered the firing on Fort Sumter to bring the upper south and the border states into the confederacy fits the entire situation, whereas the viewpoint that Davis was merely passively reacting to bold, brilliant strategic moves made by Lincoln until he finally had to attack because there was no alternative is a misrepresentation of Davis and does him a great disservice.”

Bottom line: Davis was urged into war at Fort Sumter by Confederate Fire Eaters and accurately warned against war by CSA Secretary of State Robert Toombs.
Davis chose war, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone willing to look.

Oh look. BroJoeK back to spew more of his PC Revisionist BS in this thread and back to obsessively try to tag me in again. You’d think by now he would realize he is not going to get to steal any more of my time with his intellectually dishonest garbage but I guess when you have no life at all and are desperate for attention, you’ll do anything.

.

As we've already gone over, it could never have been repealed without the consent of the states in which slavery was still legal. As in NEVER.

Thank you for admitting it was about slavery.

Thank you for admitting it was about slavery.

Thank you for admitting it was not about slavery.

FLT-bird: "I guess when you have no life at all and are desperate for attention, you’ll do anything."

And here, typical of Democrats, FLT-bird perfectly describes himself.

BroJoeK, your belief - that the South caused that tragic war and that Lincoln’s cause was noble - is just as misguided as the belief by so many - that President Trump led his MAGA followers to mount a violent insurrection last January 6.

You have been brainwashed to accept a one-sided narrative, and there’s nothing I can ever do to change that.

You have been brainwashed to accept a one-sided narrative, and there’s nothing I can ever do to change that.

This is what I figured out years ago, and I realized you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into.

I had a good friend from Allentown Pennsylvania, and he was a big Eagles fan. The Eagles could do no wrong. They were the greatest football team ever. Eagles Eagles Eagles. Eagles tee shirts, Eagles coffee cups, Eagles posters, Eagles memorabilia. Eagles Tattoo.

This is BroJoeK. He has the adoration of a loving fan, and he is immutable to reason about his "Team." He cannot be objective, he is simply incapable of it.

You want to hear how the Eagles are the greatest football team ever in the history of the World? Talk to BroJoeK. You want to hear the truth? Talk to other people.

Oh look. BroJoeK is back to obsess again. Poor little fella.