Free Republic

Nope. Slaves stayed slaves in the Union slave states. The war wasn't about freeing slaves, it was about enslaving the people who defied DC and it's control of the money.

The other 200,000 died to keep the slaves.

Died because people invaded them and killed them.

The North did not have good motives. They were the aggressors and their reasons for invading were not benign. The people who died defending their homeland had good motives.

This is an aspect of this topic of which I don't believe most Americans are aware. It came as a surprise to me when I discovered the actual motivation of all those people in the past who opposed slavery.

There were true abolitionists who opposed slavery for moral reasons, but they were a tiny minority. The vast majority of the people opposed it because they didn't want any blacks in their society.

Reading the black codes of the state of Illinois during this era was one of the things that clued me in to how people really felt. They hated black people and wanted them kept out of their society.

Yes, the Corwin Amendment was sent to the States for ratification, and yes, President Lincoln did not oppose its ratification at the time of his first inauguration. But time marches on and a different Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865.

But a reasonable man would ask how anyone motivated by a moral impulse could come down first on the one side (preserving slavery indefinitely) and then later on the other side. (eradicating it.)

What I have learned on the issue is that we have been greatly misled about why people did what they did. Their motives have been sanitized and presented in the best light possible.

And also, was the 13th Amendment really ratified, or did 11 puppet governments under the control of Lincoln's government simply "ratify" what they were ordered to ratify?

In 1787 the vast majority of the Northern states were still slave states.

Although Jefferson was not a participant, prior to 1808 his writing makes clear (to me) that the intent was all along for the Federal government to ban the importation of slaves at the earliest possible time.

Banning importation is not banning slavery.

So the US Constitution did not eradicate slavery at its inception but contained the mechanism to limit it, and eradicate it via the Amendment process.

I am unaware of any constitutional provision for limiting slavery other than the ban on importing more slaves. Article IV, section 2 required fugitive slaves to be returned to their masters. I think the constitution recognized slavery as legal, but clearly many of the framers didn't like it and did not want to acknowledge it except by indirect means.

No attempt was ever made to amend the US constitution to prohibit slavery. Lincoln and his Republican allies in congress *DID* make an attempt to amend the constitution to protect slavery in perpetuity.

This effort was known as the "Corwin Amendment."

That is incorrect. The Declaration of Independence listed as one of the causes "he hath excited domestic insurrections amongst us." Speaking specifically about slave rebellions.

The US constitution specifically required escaped slaves to be returned back to their masters.

In 1776, *ALL* states were slave states, and in 1787, the vast majority of states were still slave states.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. The US constitution had a clause in it requiring freed slaves to be returned to their masters. (Article IV, Section 2) It prohibited banning the slave trade until 1808.

Lincoln and his Republican allies even tried to amend the US constitution to protect slavery indefinitely. This was the Corwin Amendment.

The US Constitution had nothing to do with eradicating slavery.

Loved it. Introduced my kids to it a couple of years back. They loved it too.

Good post, but wasted on most people. They just want to believe what the “authorities” tell them.

She is clueless.

When you continue trying to overcome a corrupt system by playing by the rules that allows the corrupt system to overcome you, you aren't fighting, you are simply lending legitimacy to the corrupt system.

You must favor the later, as you have a firm grasp on that.

You seem to be able to discern a great deal from a comment. I'm not that smart. I would actually have to ask someone if they were counseling surrender.

In this case your discernment is incorrect. We should definitely fight, but we need to do something different from what we have been doing.

Trying to get more votes will not overcome a vote rigging system. Hopefully Kari Lake will get somewhere, but I doubt it.

What part of the Judiciary that isn't on the other side, is too stupid to do anything.

This sounds like someone who has absolutely no grasp of how the vote fraud system works.

I believe Kari Lake kicked the sh*t out of Hobbs. I believe she whipped her very badly in *REAL* votes.

This doesn't matter when you are rigging the election because you control it.

Should we not wait until we know how a live round got into that gun before we blame the armorer?

If someone else put it in there, how would it be her fault?

If the live round was in the box of dummy rounds they purchased from that supplier, how would it be her fault?

I think some people are too quick to place blame before they have heard the facts.

How would anyone know? Did the NPC announce it to everyone? Or did he demonstrate it by doing gay stuff?

What does it have to do with the story arc?

A non player character was "gay" in a game? How does that make any sense? Was showing homosexual activity relevant to the game's plot/story?

1.8% of the population is "gay" according to the last serious study I recall on the topic, so the odds are vastly against finding a random person who is "gay".

How is it even relevant to the storyline/plot?

Because they gay-ified the whole thing and they don't want to listen to people telling them how full of sh*t they are.

Sarcasm?

The legal system is horribly broken in this nation and this particular case is a good example of it.

Years ago I recall hearing of a man being released from prison after 20 years because DNA evidence proved he didn't do it.

The thought occurred to me that if the man truly did not do it, as the evidence proves he didn't do it, how could a jury have found that he did?

Arizona is starting to make more sense. The Cartels definitely hated Trump for shutting down the border, didn't they?

Thanks for suggesting that angle. I had never considered it before.

Don't care. I am never giving them another dime.

Are you all right? The Star of the West was in January of 1861. Buchanan was still President. Lincoln didn't become President until March.

Buchanan was trying to land a force to reinforce Sumter, not Lincoln.

The point is, "Star of the West" was serving a military mission, not just a supply mission.

I am absolutely *NOT* going to watch a show that normalizes two f@ggots and their adopted little girl who checks the "Asian" box.

This was a bone head move that only someone in that sewer would even think of doing.

About this you are wrong. Here is an article from the New York times which tells the truth about what happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/14/archives/return-of-the-star-of-the-west-her-attempt-to-enter-charleston.html

Excerpt:

The steamship Star of the West, Capt. MCGOWAN, returned to this port on Saturday morning from Charleston harbor, after an abortive attempt to land 200 troops and four officers at Fort Sumter, who had been sent for the reinforcement of that garrison. These troops were put on board the Star of the West at 8 o'clock on Saturday evening, January 5th, while the steamer was lying-to above the Narrows. The embarkation was conducted with all the secrecy possible, but the nature of the expedition soon became known -- Southern agents being on the alert, and telegraphing the facts to Charleston early on Sunday."

Here is another one that mentions the USS Brooklyn's involvement.

https://www2.tulane.edu/~sumter/StarOfTheWest.html