The states bordering Methico and the ones suffering the domestic terrorist sponsored importation of "migrants" are becoming painfully aware of the States' sovereignty rights lost in the War of Northern aggression.
How ignorant and pathetic that many (most?) are not aware that the 4th of July is Independence Day. I don't know what they think the holiday is for. These are the same idiots that do not know the difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day. History does repeat itself. For the third time we are being ruled by an abusive government taxing the hell out us. Again, the South is leading the fight against tyranny. Will there be another civil war? It's past due, and may be the only way the salvage the republic (or what's left of it). Incidentally, the largest slave trader was a black man in SC. And the largest slave port after Charleston SC was Newport RI. Now we are all slaves.
I live in WA State, and I sure as hell don't side with the Woke Fascist Assholes who are really minions of the Globbs, trying to turn Americans against each other... I don't know anyone who thinks fascism or shitloads of taxes, or slavery of any kind is OK.
If people were attacking us from the northern border, we'd be doing what the southerners are doing... And kudos to those southerners!!! And I grew up in Texas! Hell, yeah, so-- don't help the Nasties do their Divide and Conquer evil. We're ALL after FREEDOM.
I am always dismayed when I see a survey of supposedly educated citizens and they rank the despicable Lincoln as the #1 or #2 best President. He is at the very bottom of my list.
on’t let this gross misrepresentation of what happened leading up to, during and after the civil war to change your impression of President Lincoln. Yes, it is true that he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, but it was not national wide. The suspension was in Washington D.C. and the surrounding area, which was a hot bed of secessionist agitation and activity. The important thing to know about this is that those who by word or by action claimed to longer be under the rule of federal law then cry when they are not also under its protection.
I hate to pop your bubble on Father Abraham, actually I don't hate to.
Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's?
In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books--and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provocative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.
In The Real Lincoln, you will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.
In “Four Years with the Iron Brigade: The Civil War Journals of William R Ray, Co. F, Seventh Wisconsin Infantry”, the author tells of a confederate POW who shared a tent with him in a military hospital and became his “particular friend”. At one point, Ray asked his johnny friend, why he was fighting. The answer, of course, “My rights.” He then asked for this confederate soldier to explain which of his rights were at risk. No answer, silence.
Beyond tariffs which the ordinary person in the south had nothing to do with, what other “rights” did Lincoln threaten? The only right I can name, is the “right” to keep another human as property.
And yet, none of that would have happened, not at that time and place as it did, had not the south first fired upon Fort Sumter, a federal fort garrisoned by the US army before hand.
You remove any except one of the issues that led to the civil war and there is still a civil war. If the tariff system was changed so that the south was made happy, still a war. If the south were allowed to import new slaves, still a war. Protect slavery, no war. The way of life they fought to protect had slavery woven into its fabric.
This argument net about subverting the constitution needs greater discussion. What actions did Lincoln under take in the 6 weeks between his inauguration and the firing upon Fort Sumter? These subversions to the constitution were against those who openly sated they were not held to the laws of the United States. For them to then cry foul when they are not protected by the laws they disavow is just plain childish.
I hate to pop your bubble on Father Abraham, actually I don't hate to.
Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's?
In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books--and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provocative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.
In The Real Lincoln, you will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.
There is no why. It is a RIGHT and to suspend it is an INFRINGEMENT. Something "father" Abraham was quite adept at doing. The whole idea that a group of people who form a "state" can leave a compact when the compact is broken is hogwash. Lincoln was the first (of many) dictators who went way past his office of president with executive orders and his desire to do away with the sovereignty of the states is quite obvious. Well unless you're a Maskless Crusader.
Yes, it does, but so is having the Capital sacked or at least completely cut off. Washington DC was surrounded by southern states. A regiment of New York volunteer infantry was attacked by an angry mob as they marched between train stations on their way to defend the capital. Wars are not pleasant. Best not to invite them.
And of course the south invited it. Trying to get you to see the other side of the story is fruitless. You must think that what came out of the war, which was Lincolns aim when it came to a federal government with 435 agencies and tyrannical acts from the day the war ended is a wonderful way to run things. Be happy with your chains.
Have you ever read anything by Wendell Berry? I think you'd like him... He's written many books, but I think most recently is the one titled "The Need To Be Whole." He is not clued in about Covid (yet), but he makes some very good points about the Civil War and the situation with family farms, race relations, etc... Really good writer and book. He's like 95 now or something? Kentucky farmer and writer from way back.
Anyone who does not understand that bombarding a fort invites the owners of the fort to invade is living in LaLa Land. Sadly, history tells us that many live in LaLa Land.
What happened after the war and applying it to Lincoln, who was dead, is alternative history. A fun game but not much more than that. But, let’s play this game, since you keep trying to g to get me to play. Lincoln, “With malice towards none”, was not a “bloody shirt” kinda guy. He is not likely to have gone for reconstruction, certainly not as it was carried out. His VP tried to go lenient on the South and was impeached. Thus, it is likely that Lincoln would have been too, unless he embraced reconstruction or at least keep a hands off attitude towards it. However, there is little in Lincoln’s actions that indicate he was hands off on any of the hard topics of his day. Having successfully conducted the war as President, it is likely that he had enough political capital to fend off an impeachment attempt. I suspect, that had Lincoln not been assassinated, reconstruction wild not have happened. But, we will never know as he was murdered.
I have repeatedly asked you, what rights did Lincoln threaten in his 6 weeks in office before the bombardment of fort Sumter. Besides tariffs and their way of life, which could not exist without slavery, you have yet to provide anything. The tariffs would not have had much if any effect on the southern farm boy who fell in to line for the Southern army.
The civil war was started by the rich in the south over fear that they would lose their means to power and wealth.
As far as what has happened since, here are two links to postings on my substack, it’s free. Read these and see if you still believe that I am happy with where the U.S. is today.
Believe as you will. I'll believe as I will. Lincoln was scum from the day he got in office. And where was that fort? Oh, that's right SOUTH CAROLINA, one of the states that told Lincoln to go pound sand. It would be like us attacking Cuba because they decide to take back Gitmo from the US. WHO does that base REALLY belong too?
I wasn’t going to point this out, but decided to. You speak of natural rights; did they not apply to the men, women and children of color that were owned by these folk who after “leaving: the union cried foul when the Union’s laws did not protect them?
We lose our rights when we commit crimes. Attacking soldiers on the march, seizing bridges and threading verbally and through actions as did those whose writ of habeas corpus rights were temporarily suspended are crimes. War time is not play time. Martial law suspends all rights. That is why martial law is so onerous and if used, should only be used in time of war, as it was in the case we are discussing.
Further, our constitution does not grant rights, as they are natural rights, it can only guarantee them; but does not do so for noncitizens. We have a case here of people who deem themselves free from federal law crying about not having their rights protected by the same laws they ignore; to which I say “Whaaaaaa”.
Show me a place in the Constitution ALLOWING martial law. Show me. Martial law is an act of war against the people. You can't "suspend" rights. You can only INFRINGE on them. There is a major difference. I just wish the South would have won. Your understanding of the Constitution and rights is way off base. Seriously, I'm done.
Bollocks, m'dear. I shall never vote for thee. Nor shall I ever join in with those who say, "If you're going to be evil, then so am I!" Know what I mean, Vern? Why lower yourself to that level? Keep on the High Side, it's easier to see the backs of the Assholes' heads.
One key difference between the two men discussed here is that the earlier one did this BEFORE an act of war was committed and the later on AFTER an act of war.
In his memoirs, Grant brought up another point. The land inhabited by the secessionist was purchased from the national treasury with funds from the entire country for the better of the entire country.
The act of "war" was a provocation by the North. Ft Sumpter was a SOUTHERN fort. They took it over (an act of war) and the south attacked it to get them out. Oh, you never heard that before? Well golly gee, I'm shocked.
What? It was a national fort built with federal funds and garrisoned by the US army before succession. The first shots in anger were against a supply vessel bringing food and probably munitions for the garrison of the fort.
You believe the propaganda that you believe and I'll believe the propaganda I'll believe. Because you know what? NEITHER of us know the actual truth unless we would have been there. We have to go by hearsay written by the side that won. I read from the side that lost. So we have two conflicting views. Are you SURPRISED?
The SOUTH was RIGHT. PERIOD. It wasn't over slavery. Because if it was, you wouldn't be a SLAVE right now. Nor would I.
We are enslaved right now because a few Governors of southern states were too big for their britches and used the State’s Rights issue as a defense of a State’s right to enslave human beings. Their argument on States’ rights is sound, but they choose the absolutely worst “right” to go to war over.
That got almost every thing they wanted from the North in regards to slavery. They got to count slaves toward the population of southern districts for representation; that is huge. They got to continue breeding slaves and selling them. They received property rights protection of their slaves if they traveled to a free state with their slaves. And, they got passed into law the Fujitive Slave Act requiring escaped slaved who made it to a free state to be returned to them and made it a federal crime to aid escaped slaves. The one thing they did not get with slavery that they wanted was to be able to continue importing slaves. Hell, these southerners even started the Mexican American war in hopes of expanding slave holding territory in the country and increase their power in the federal legislature.
And with these complaints and concessions the South remained in the union until Lincoln, whom they perceived to be an abolitionist was elected. They did not go to war over taxes, nor tariffs, the really big issue other than slavery, they went to war over the belief that Lincoln would abolish slavery.
We don’t know? Read the writings of the gentleman of the south at this time, their speeches, their news papers. They state very different sentiments than you claim they held. To be fair, they changed their tune as the war drug on and especially after. But read what they were saying leading up to and immediately after Lincoln’s election.
So tell me about reconstruction. Tell me about those 12 years of Yankee aggression against the beaten south. Tell me how the 14 amendment was properly passed when they wouldn't let the south vote on it. The result of the war for southern independence was a GIGANTIC behemoth of a federal government shitting all over our rights from one day to the next. The north should be just as happy as I am about it. I say invoke Article 6 of the Constitution and kick every damn fed employee out and close every stinking fed office in a given state. Then form a militia and tell the feds to go fuck themselves.
I am laughing at my foolishness for not realizing this earlier. You said the south went to war over taxes. Okay, which taxes? Taxes on what items or activities? Paid by whom?
Lincoln was dead before reconstruction. He would not have allowed it. Most likely would have been impeached for not allowing it. Reconstruction as it was carried out was a massive oxymoron. A war to keep the south from leaving was just won by the north but then the north imposes the need for southern states to apply for readmission. What a mental pretzel that is.
Actually, we're enslaved right now because of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. They sold us out to the Crown Corporation, which thinks because they've tricked a lot of the world into believing a LIE, that they OWN us all. One cannot make a contract without giving the other party FULL DISCLOSURE of what that contract entails. If one party simply doesn't tell the other what the contract is, then any agreement would be considered Null and Void. That's what's happened to most of the world, via the Black Nobility and the Crown Corporation.
Dude, the American Civil War is the top is I have studied the most. My personal library on the war contains over 150 books. It’s not propaganda I wrote, it’s history. The Federal government did not take over the fort over. It was the property of the federal government.
On what the war was over. You are correct in that there were many long standing issues, taxes being one, in which the South had been vocally opposed to. But it was not until a president from a new party that formed, at least in part, for the purpose of needing slavery that the South finally decided to part company. The tinder had long been laid, but it was the slavery issue that lit it.
The federal government is a fiction. It can't "own" anything. As for your 150 books...how many are written from the south's perspective? Are you going to tell me that the war was over slavery when there were slaves in the north? Are you going to tell me that Lincoln really gave a rats ass about the slaves in the south? Are you going to tell me that with 5% of the population of the south owning slaves that those suthren red necks went to war against the north because they felt so bad about those white AND BLACK slave owners having their slaves freed? I'd say most likely you're in that group that was MISS EDUCATED. Kind of like the medical profession. Garbage in, garbage out.
Oh, and my last question. DO you have a copy of "The South Was Right" right in there with those 150 books, which I suspect is an over exaggeration. Just curious...
Are you of the belief that the reasons the lowly infantryman joined the fight in any war is the reason for the war he is sent off to die in? If so, I have a wonderful bridge here in Tokyo Bay I’d like to sell you.
As with all wars, those with and power start wars to increase or to defend these and then sell the need for the war in terms palatable to the public. Yes, that small percentage of slave owners and perhaps a few other wealthy persons brought the war upon the nation.
I have read quite a few diaries of soldiers and sailors from both sides of the Mason Dixon Line. Slavery is rarely mentioned, if at all. But neither is “States Rights”, nor taxes, nor tariffs. Early in the war, the Johnnies mainly talk about how they’ll whip the dastardly Lincoln it’s, how one southern is worth ten Yankees on the battlefield. From the North, how they will make the south mind ole Uncle Sam.
While it would take much longer for the national government to cotton to the idea, for early on a few northern states raised colored companies. The south refused to do so until too late to do any good. Still, there are well documented cases of colored men fighting for the South. But the southern populace as a whole was more dead set against it than those in the north were. And yes, there are documented cases of desertions of northern soldiers, and at least one regiment enmass to the south once the emancipation proclamation was issued. What ever the reasons that existed before this proclamation was made, it was certainly a war to end slavery thereafter.
The government of Great Britain aided the South but the populace of the nation did not like the fact that their country was helping the slave owners.
As far as “The South Was Right” goes, I do not have it but it was widely discussed in our monthly meetings for a while. Yes, in the main they were right, except they choose slavery as the right to go to war over, a war that they could not win and by losing it allowed for the gradual loss of our freedoms. That loss is due to hot headed slave owners of the South. Read what Sam Houston had to say on this. Especially the draft of a speech or an unsent letter to the editor of a paper, I do not recall which, that spells out his thoughts on secession and what the ultimate result would be. Almost prophetic.
The states bordering Methico and the ones suffering the domestic terrorist sponsored importation of "migrants" are becoming painfully aware of the States' sovereignty rights lost in the War of Northern aggression.
How ignorant and pathetic that many (most?) are not aware that the 4th of July is Independence Day. I don't know what they think the holiday is for. These are the same idiots that do not know the difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day. History does repeat itself. For the third time we are being ruled by an abusive government taxing the hell out us. Again, the South is leading the fight against tyranny. Will there be another civil war? It's past due, and may be the only way the salvage the republic (or what's left of it). Incidentally, the largest slave trader was a black man in SC. And the largest slave port after Charleston SC was Newport RI. Now we are all slaves.
I live in WA State, and I sure as hell don't side with the Woke Fascist Assholes who are really minions of the Globbs, trying to turn Americans against each other... I don't know anyone who thinks fascism or shitloads of taxes, or slavery of any kind is OK.
If people were attacking us from the northern border, we'd be doing what the southerners are doing... And kudos to those southerners!!! And I grew up in Texas! Hell, yeah, so-- don't help the Nasties do their Divide and Conquer evil. We're ALL after FREEDOM.
I am always dismayed when I see a survey of supposedly educated citizens and they rank the despicable Lincoln as the #1 or #2 best President. He is at the very bottom of my list.
Wow. I didn't know these things, most of 'em, anyway. DAMN.
So, is Lincoln the new old hero for the Woke Fux? The Globbs must love him....
Can you and anyone recommend some good books on the history of the Civil War?
And, btw, guys, it's "seceded" not "succeeded" from the Union... ;)
on’t let this gross misrepresentation of what happened leading up to, during and after the civil war to change your impression of President Lincoln. Yes, it is true that he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, but it was not national wide. The suspension was in Washington D.C. and the surrounding area, which was a hot bed of secessionist agitation and activity. The important thing to know about this is that those who by word or by action claimed to longer be under the rule of federal law then cry when they are not also under its protection.
I hate to pop your bubble on Father Abraham, actually I don't hate to.
Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's?
In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books--and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provocative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.
In The Real Lincoln, you will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.
https://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761526463
But, how do you know DiLorenzo is not bullshitting us? It IS about destroying all those things we thought were Good...
By the way, have you heard THIS?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/s2rmdBNbN1Qq/
Have you seen THIS?
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/what-does-the-rule-of-law-mean
Fuckin' A. I knew there was fuckery, but not the details...
In “Four Years with the Iron Brigade: The Civil War Journals of William R Ray, Co. F, Seventh Wisconsin Infantry”, the author tells of a confederate POW who shared a tent with him in a military hospital and became his “particular friend”. At one point, Ray asked his johnny friend, why he was fighting. The answer, of course, “My rights.” He then asked for this confederate soldier to explain which of his rights were at risk. No answer, silence.
Beyond tariffs which the ordinary person in the south had nothing to do with, what other “rights” did Lincoln threaten? The only right I can name, is the “right” to keep another human as property.
And yet, none of that would have happened, not at that time and place as it did, had not the south first fired upon Fort Sumter, a federal fort garrisoned by the US army before hand.
You remove any except one of the issues that led to the civil war and there is still a civil war. If the tariff system was changed so that the south was made happy, still a war. If the south were allowed to import new slaves, still a war. Protect slavery, no war. The way of life they fought to protect had slavery woven into its fabric.
This argument net about subverting the constitution needs greater discussion. What actions did Lincoln under take in the 6 weeks between his inauguration and the firing upon Fort Sumter? These subversions to the constitution were against those who openly sated they were not held to the laws of the United States. For them to then cry foul when they are not protected by the laws they disavow is just plain childish.
At the risk of being redundant...
I hate to pop your bubble on Father Abraham, actually I don't hate to.
Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's?
In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books--and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provocative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.
In The Real Lincoln, you will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.
https://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761526463
Okay, but suspension of Habeas sucks, regardless of why. My opinion.
Read down, there's two links I put in, in another comment, you might be interested.
There is no why. It is a RIGHT and to suspend it is an INFRINGEMENT. Something "father" Abraham was quite adept at doing. The whole idea that a group of people who form a "state" can leave a compact when the compact is broken is hogwash. Lincoln was the first (of many) dictators who went way past his office of president with executive orders and his desire to do away with the sovereignty of the states is quite obvious. Well unless you're a Maskless Crusader.
Yes, it does, but so is having the Capital sacked or at least completely cut off. Washington DC was surrounded by southern states. A regiment of New York volunteer infantry was attacked by an angry mob as they marched between train stations on their way to defend the capital. Wars are not pleasant. Best not to invite them.
And of course the south invited it. Trying to get you to see the other side of the story is fruitless. You must think that what came out of the war, which was Lincolns aim when it came to a federal government with 435 agencies and tyrannical acts from the day the war ended is a wonderful way to run things. Be happy with your chains.
Have you ever read anything by Wendell Berry? I think you'd like him... He's written many books, but I think most recently is the one titled "The Need To Be Whole." He is not clued in about Covid (yet), but he makes some very good points about the Civil War and the situation with family farms, race relations, etc... Really good writer and book. He's like 95 now or something? Kentucky farmer and writer from way back.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61218415-the-need-to-be-whole
Anyone who does not understand that bombarding a fort invites the owners of the fort to invade is living in LaLa Land. Sadly, history tells us that many live in LaLa Land.
What happened after the war and applying it to Lincoln, who was dead, is alternative history. A fun game but not much more than that. But, let’s play this game, since you keep trying to g to get me to play. Lincoln, “With malice towards none”, was not a “bloody shirt” kinda guy. He is not likely to have gone for reconstruction, certainly not as it was carried out. His VP tried to go lenient on the South and was impeached. Thus, it is likely that Lincoln would have been too, unless he embraced reconstruction or at least keep a hands off attitude towards it. However, there is little in Lincoln’s actions that indicate he was hands off on any of the hard topics of his day. Having successfully conducted the war as President, it is likely that he had enough political capital to fend off an impeachment attempt. I suspect, that had Lincoln not been assassinated, reconstruction wild not have happened. But, we will never know as he was murdered.
I have repeatedly asked you, what rights did Lincoln threaten in his 6 weeks in office before the bombardment of fort Sumter. Besides tariffs and their way of life, which could not exist without slavery, you have yet to provide anything. The tariffs would not have had much if any effect on the southern farm boy who fell in to line for the Southern army.
The civil war was started by the rich in the south over fear that they would lose their means to power and wealth.
As far as what has happened since, here are two links to postings on my substack, it’s free. Read these and see if you still believe that I am happy with where the U.S. is today.
https://zakitsune.substack.com/p/the-burdens-of-us-citizenship
https://open.substack.com/pub/zakitsune/p/part-2-the-horrors-of-the-bubble?r=mza28&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Believe as you will. I'll believe as I will. Lincoln was scum from the day he got in office. And where was that fort? Oh, that's right SOUTH CAROLINA, one of the states that told Lincoln to go pound sand. It would be like us attacking Cuba because they decide to take back Gitmo from the US. WHO does that base REALLY belong too?
I don't think you understand the concept of NATURAL RIGHTS.
You don't REPEAL people's rights because it's inconvenient to honor them-- or because they "deserve it." Unless, of course, you're a tyrant.
I wasn’t going to point this out, but decided to. You speak of natural rights; did they not apply to the men, women and children of color that were owned by these folk who after “leaving: the union cried foul when the Union’s laws did not protect them?
You don't get it. Let me make it more plain:
EVERYBODY HAS NATURAL RIGHTS. THEY ARE NOT "GRANTED." THEY ARE GIVEN TO US BY BIRTHRIGHT AS CHILDREN OF THE DIVINE, BY THE DIVINE, AND THEY ARE
UN
ALIEN
ABLE.
PERIOD.
Okay, bye.
We lose our rights when we commit crimes. Attacking soldiers on the march, seizing bridges and threading verbally and through actions as did those whose writ of habeas corpus rights were temporarily suspended are crimes. War time is not play time. Martial law suspends all rights. That is why martial law is so onerous and if used, should only be used in time of war, as it was in the case we are discussing.
Further, our constitution does not grant rights, as they are natural rights, it can only guarantee them; but does not do so for noncitizens. We have a case here of people who deem themselves free from federal law crying about not having their rights protected by the same laws they ignore; to which I say “Whaaaaaa”.
Show me a place in the Constitution ALLOWING martial law. Show me. Martial law is an act of war against the people. You can't "suspend" rights. You can only INFRINGE on them. There is a major difference. I just wish the South would have won. Your understanding of the Constitution and rights is way off base. Seriously, I'm done.
Bollocks, m'dear. I shall never vote for thee. Nor shall I ever join in with those who say, "If you're going to be evil, then so am I!" Know what I mean, Vern? Why lower yourself to that level? Keep on the High Side, it's easier to see the backs of the Assholes' heads.
One key difference between the two men discussed here is that the earlier one did this BEFORE an act of war was committed and the later on AFTER an act of war.
In his memoirs, Grant brought up another point. The land inhabited by the secessionist was purchased from the national treasury with funds from the entire country for the better of the entire country.
The act of "war" was a provocation by the North. Ft Sumpter was a SOUTHERN fort. They took it over (an act of war) and the south attacked it to get them out. Oh, you never heard that before? Well golly gee, I'm shocked.
What? It was a national fort built with federal funds and garrisoned by the US army before succession. The first shots in anger were against a supply vessel bringing food and probably munitions for the garrison of the fort.
You believe the propaganda that you believe and I'll believe the propaganda I'll believe. Because you know what? NEITHER of us know the actual truth unless we would have been there. We have to go by hearsay written by the side that won. I read from the side that lost. So we have two conflicting views. Are you SURPRISED?
The SOUTH was RIGHT. PERIOD. It wasn't over slavery. Because if it was, you wouldn't be a SLAVE right now. Nor would I.
We are enslaved right now because a few Governors of southern states were too big for their britches and used the State’s Rights issue as a defense of a State’s right to enslave human beings. Their argument on States’ rights is sound, but they choose the absolutely worst “right” to go to war over.
That got almost every thing they wanted from the North in regards to slavery. They got to count slaves toward the population of southern districts for representation; that is huge. They got to continue breeding slaves and selling them. They received property rights protection of their slaves if they traveled to a free state with their slaves. And, they got passed into law the Fujitive Slave Act requiring escaped slaved who made it to a free state to be returned to them and made it a federal crime to aid escaped slaves. The one thing they did not get with slavery that they wanted was to be able to continue importing slaves. Hell, these southerners even started the Mexican American war in hopes of expanding slave holding territory in the country and increase their power in the federal legislature.
And with these complaints and concessions the South remained in the union until Lincoln, whom they perceived to be an abolitionist was elected. They did not go to war over taxes, nor tariffs, the really big issue other than slavery, they went to war over the belief that Lincoln would abolish slavery.
We don’t know? Read the writings of the gentleman of the south at this time, their speeches, their news papers. They state very different sentiments than you claim they held. To be fair, they changed their tune as the war drug on and especially after. But read what they were saying leading up to and immediately after Lincoln’s election.
So tell me about reconstruction. Tell me about those 12 years of Yankee aggression against the beaten south. Tell me how the 14 amendment was properly passed when they wouldn't let the south vote on it. The result of the war for southern independence was a GIGANTIC behemoth of a federal government shitting all over our rights from one day to the next. The north should be just as happy as I am about it. I say invoke Article 6 of the Constitution and kick every damn fed employee out and close every stinking fed office in a given state. Then form a militia and tell the feds to go fuck themselves.
I am laughing at my foolishness for not realizing this earlier. You said the south went to war over taxes. Okay, which taxes? Taxes on what items or activities? Paid by whom?
Lincoln was dead before reconstruction. He would not have allowed it. Most likely would have been impeached for not allowing it. Reconstruction as it was carried out was a massive oxymoron. A war to keep the south from leaving was just won by the north but then the north imposes the need for southern states to apply for readmission. What a mental pretzel that is.
Actually, we're enslaved right now because of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. They sold us out to the Crown Corporation, which thinks because they've tricked a lot of the world into believing a LIE, that they OWN us all. One cannot make a contract without giving the other party FULL DISCLOSURE of what that contract entails. If one party simply doesn't tell the other what the contract is, then any agreement would be considered Null and Void. That's what's happened to most of the world, via the Black Nobility and the Crown Corporation.
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/who-rules-the-world
Dude, the American Civil War is the top is I have studied the most. My personal library on the war contains over 150 books. It’s not propaganda I wrote, it’s history. The Federal government did not take over the fort over. It was the property of the federal government.
On what the war was over. You are correct in that there were many long standing issues, taxes being one, in which the South had been vocally opposed to. But it was not until a president from a new party that formed, at least in part, for the purpose of needing slavery that the South finally decided to part company. The tinder had long been laid, but it was the slavery issue that lit it.
The federal government is a fiction. It can't "own" anything. As for your 150 books...how many are written from the south's perspective? Are you going to tell me that the war was over slavery when there were slaves in the north? Are you going to tell me that Lincoln really gave a rats ass about the slaves in the south? Are you going to tell me that with 5% of the population of the south owning slaves that those suthren red necks went to war against the north because they felt so bad about those white AND BLACK slave owners having their slaves freed? I'd say most likely you're in that group that was MISS EDUCATED. Kind of like the medical profession. Garbage in, garbage out.
Oh, and my last question. DO you have a copy of "The South Was Right" right in there with those 150 books, which I suspect is an over exaggeration. Just curious...
Again, read what the southerners were writing and saying in 1860-1861. Forgot to include that in my last.
Cool your emotions.
Are you of the belief that the reasons the lowly infantryman joined the fight in any war is the reason for the war he is sent off to die in? If so, I have a wonderful bridge here in Tokyo Bay I’d like to sell you.
As with all wars, those with and power start wars to increase or to defend these and then sell the need for the war in terms palatable to the public. Yes, that small percentage of slave owners and perhaps a few other wealthy persons brought the war upon the nation.
I have read quite a few diaries of soldiers and sailors from both sides of the Mason Dixon Line. Slavery is rarely mentioned, if at all. But neither is “States Rights”, nor taxes, nor tariffs. Early in the war, the Johnnies mainly talk about how they’ll whip the dastardly Lincoln it’s, how one southern is worth ten Yankees on the battlefield. From the North, how they will make the south mind ole Uncle Sam.
While it would take much longer for the national government to cotton to the idea, for early on a few northern states raised colored companies. The south refused to do so until too late to do any good. Still, there are well documented cases of colored men fighting for the South. But the southern populace as a whole was more dead set against it than those in the north were. And yes, there are documented cases of desertions of northern soldiers, and at least one regiment enmass to the south once the emancipation proclamation was issued. What ever the reasons that existed before this proclamation was made, it was certainly a war to end slavery thereafter.
The government of Great Britain aided the South but the populace of the nation did not like the fact that their country was helping the slave owners.
As far as “The South Was Right” goes, I do not have it but it was widely discussed in our monthly meetings for a while. Yes, in the main they were right, except they choose slavery as the right to go to war over, a war that they could not win and by losing it allowed for the gradual loss of our freedoms. That loss is due to hot headed slave owners of the South. Read what Sam Houston had to say on this. Especially the draft of a speech or an unsent letter to the editor of a paper, I do not recall which, that spells out his thoughts on secession and what the ultimate result would be. Almost prophetic.