Let’s not spin the Civil War

[Pass Lake]

Lincoln entered the war when Ft. Sumtner was fired upon by South Carolinians.  The South seceded to preserve slavery ("their way of life").  Some try to spin it differently but it is in the South Carolina seccession statement.   Lincoln's initial response was to preserve the union of states.  He didn't make it a war to end slavery until after the major union victory Antietam.  And then he only freed the slaves in "rebellious states'. You are correct in your statement.   He did this so he wouldn't anger slaveholders in the border states that stayed in the Union.  He didn't want them to secede.  Lincoln showed great political instincts in a very difficult situation.

[Gary G]

Lincoln was warned by his cabinet that resupplying Ft. Sumter would be seen as an act of war.
He was right about that!
 
Davis cabinet warned not to fire on Sumter. He said there was no choice, but he believed the world would understand.
He was wrong about that!

[Cabin4]

Thomas DiLorenzo is an economics professor not a historian.  He had a brief flirtation with history and Lincoln in writing his book "The Real Lincoln."  Someone who writes,"The Food & Drink Police: Americas Nannies, Busybodies and petty tyrants" can't be seriously considered as a serious Lincoln authority.  He is a crank who lives in his own little world with his own little ideas about A. Lincoln.

You don;t have to be a history professor to write a book about a person from history. You just have to know how to do the proper research. In this case, he's writing about a particular person so its not so much a history book as it is a biography about Lincoln. Lets face it, Lincoln was a criminal. If history cannot judge him to be a criminal, then there are no criminals any place.

[Buckskin]

Lincoln was a criminal. If history cannot judge him to be a criminal, then there are no criminals any place.

By who's interpretation?  The old south's, the US Constitution, or a handful of people in the south who are still bitter that they lost the war? As I've said before, those on the loosing end of a war alway feel violated. Get over it already...

[Cabin4]

Lincoln was a criminal. If history cannot judge him to be a criminal, then there are no criminals any place.

By who's interpretation?  The old south's, the US Constitution, or a handful of people in the south who are still bitter that they lost the war? As I've said before, those on the loosing end of a war alway feel violated. Get over it already...

By my account and the account of 10's of millions of others since the war started 150 years ago. Any president that would wage an armed war on his own people simply because they wanted to exercise their rights and the rights of states under the constitution, is a criminal.  Lincoln got what he desreved in the end. A taste of his own violence. He became just 1 of the 700,000 or so killed by his own orders.

[subdjoe]

Lincoln was a criminal. If history cannot judge him to be a criminal, then there are no criminals any place.

By who's interpretation?  The old south's, the US Constitution, or a handful of people in the south who are still bitter that they lost the war? As I've said before, those on the loosing end of a war alway feel violated. Get over it already...

At reenactments I ask people what they think of a president who has people arrested without warrant, imprisoned without trial, held incommunicado, not told the charges against them, who has mail to and from people who disagree with him intercepted, who imprisons members of a state legislature to insure that that body can't go about its legitimate business.  I got an almost universal response of 'Oh, I don't like Bush.  He needs to be tried as a criminal."  They were surprised when I said I was talking about their president, "Honest" Abe.  So, it would seem that lots of people, at least here in CA, consider Lincoln a criminal.

[Pass Lake]

You mean they wanted to exercise their Constitutional states right to own slaves.  That is what the Confederacy was all about.  All this Lew Rockwell, Ludwig von Mises, Rockford Institute, League of the South, Lincoln bashing  bs is all about defending racist attitudes and is an attempt to spread Neo Confederate propaganda. Deny the N. Bedford Forest was the head of the KKK.  Soon we will be told the KKK was a fine civic organization like the PTA that was trying to protect little children.   It is just like the Holocaust denial that Neo Nazis try to spin.     

No, you don't have to be a historian to write a book about history, but it is impossible to have creditability if you write that Lincoln was a criminal.

[Cabin4]

You mean they wanted to exercise their Constitutional states right to own slaves.  That is what the Confederacy was all about.  All this Lew Rockwell, Ludwig von Mises, Rockford Institute, League of the South, Lincoln bashing  bs is all about defending racist attitudes and is an attempt to spread Neo Confederate propaganda. Deny the N. Bedford Forest was the head of the KKK.  Soon we will be told the KKK was a fine civic organization like the PTA that was trying to protect little children.   It is just like the Holocaust denial that Neo Nazis try to spin.     

No, you don't have to be a historian to write a book about history, but it is impossible to have creditability if you write that Lincoln was a criminal.

Lets face it, your a blood thirsty racist and you'll use any reason to justify the killing of white people. As if enslaving people is justification for killing.

See how this works when you use the typical left wing Lincoln lover logic?

[Casull]

You mean they wanted to exercise their Constitutional states right to own slaves. 

No, they wanted to exercise their Constitutional states' rights to retain all powers not specifically granted to the federal government.

That is what the Confederacy was all about. 

That is probably the most sophmoric and simplistic analysis I've ever seen of the War of Northern Aggression.

Lincoln bashing  bs is all about defending racist attitudes

Is this the same Lincoln who would have left slavery in place if it would have secured the Union?  Or the same Lincoln who believed that blacks were lesser people than whites?

[Cabin4]

The Lincoln loveres will never admit to the words that came out of his mouth. They all say the same BS and then when you repeat the very words and or actions that Linclon took, they turn a blind eye and accuse us of ignoring history......

The truth is no one is defending slavery. Everyone knows that it was not right. But this wrong simply cannot be justified by Lincolns complete and total over the top illegal actions.

[Swampman]

The south was bustin' it's buttons for a war.  That's a pure and simple fact.

Forrest was a Civil Rights leader.

http://www.tennessee-scv.org/ForrestHistSociety/forrest_speech.html

[subdjoe]

The south was bustin' it's buttons for a war.  That's a pure and simple fact.

Forrest was a Civil Rights leader.

http://www.tennessee-scv.org/ForrestHistSociety/forrest_speech.html

There is a heap of difference between being willing, and maybe even eager, to fight for your rights and staging a war of aggression. 

I do like Forrests short talk to the forerunner of the NAACP.

[Swampman]

War strikes me as being aggressive, unless you don't care to win.  Unfortunately America has forgotten the lesson they learned during the Civil War.

[Buckskin]

Lincoln was a criminal. If history cannot judge him to be a criminal, then there are no criminals any place.

By who's interpretation?  The old south's, the US Constitution, or a handful of people in the south who are still bitter that they lost the war? As I've said before, those on the loosing end of a war alway feel violated. Get over it already...

By my account and the account of 10's of millions of others since the war started 150 years ago. Any president that would wage an armed war on his own people simply because they wanted to exercise their rights and the rights of states under the constitution, is a criminal.  Lincoln got what he desreved in the end. A taste of his own violence. He became just 1 of the 700,000 or so killed by his own orders.

Fortunately your account doesn't mean squat, especially when you pull numbers like 10's of millions out of your butt. Hard to see your side with logic like that...

In the end we all get what we deserve and it has nothing to do with how it ends here on earth.

[Cabin4]

Lincoln was a criminal. If history cannot judge him to be a criminal, then there are no criminals any place.

By who's interpretation?  The old south's, the US Constitution, or a handful of people in the south who are still bitter that they lost the war? As I've said before, those on the loosing end of a war alway feel violated. Get over it already...

By my account and the account of 10's of millions of others since the war started 150 years ago. Any president that would wage an armed war on his own people simply because they wanted to exercise their rights and the rights of states under the constitution, is a criminal.  Lincoln got what he desreved in the end. A taste of his own violence. He became just 1 of the 700,000 or so killed by his own orders.

Fortunately your account doesn't mean squat, especially when you pull numbers like 10's of millions out of your butt. Hard to see your side with logic like that...

In the end we all get what we deserve and it has nothing to do with how it ends here on earth.

If my account does not mean squat then niether does yours. So why are you posting on this thread? And yes, there 10s of millions that share my opionion over the past 150 years. We are open to the facts leading up to the war, during the war and about the war monger criminal Lincoln.

Your the only one failing to see the logic. Your simply siding with the winner and your ignoring history with your ignorance to the real facts.

[Swampman]

The winner of the rebellion was The United States of America.  Nothing else really matters.

[Cabin4]

The winner of the rebellion was The United States of America.  Nothing else really matters.

Typical idiotic quote. Proof that you are not capable of understanding history nor should you ever post on any thread that is designed to review history.

[Brewster]

The confederates lost, and the SCOTUS deemed them treasonous.

[Swampman]

The winner of the rebellion was The United States of America.  Nothing else really matters.

Typical idiotic quote. Proof that you are not capable of understanding history nor should you ever post on any thread that is designed to review history.

I don't let bigotry taint my research.  Still waiting for you to post a fact.

[Cabin4]

Since when does a SCOTUS ruling apply to non-USA locations? It is the Supreme Court of The United States, is it not? The Confederate States were not part of the USA.

[Swampman]

The never actually ceased to be part of the US.  They were simply in a state of rebellion.

[Brewster]

and Sprott vs United States came after the confederacy was dead. 

[Cabin4]

Only in the minds of those people who disregard the constitution, its provision regarding states rights and the historical FACT, that the states joined the Union at thier own free will under the gauranteed agreement of thier rights as individual states.

You see SM, there has been a coup in this country many years ago. The constitution and its provision for states rights and the premise of why the Union formed has been lost in a great lie to the American people. You and others have swollowed the lie, hook, line and sinker. You are blind to the real issues at hand here and that is States Rights. The feds have none of the power people like you have given them by your ignorance of our formantion as a country.

[Gary G]

Of course Cabin4  is right:

Did the states form the union?
or
Did the union form the states?

And if states formed the union, would they give up their power to that union? Of course not. That would be stupid, especially so close after fighting a war of revolution for that right to self govern.

[Swampman]

Regardless the states never left the Union.  They were simply in a state of rebellion.

[Gary G]

Regardless the states never left the Union.  They were simply in a state of rebellion.

And so there was no secession?

[Swampman]

Not according to the United States.  The southern states were never thought of as anything other than rebellious.

[Brewster]

for you "states rights" fans, none of you are constitutional lawyers, and are, in my opinion full of crap.  So if you disagree, you have two options:  Take it to court or take it to the street.  Either way, you lose.  If you just continue to piss and whine, you'll always be losers like the last 150 years of lost causers.

[Cabin4]

for you "states rights" fans, none of you are constitutional lawyers, and are, in my opinion full of crap.  So if you disagree, you have two options:  Take it to court or take it to the street.  Either way, you lose.  If you just continue to piss and whine, you'll always be losers like the last 150 years of lost causers.

Neither are you but I do know how to read. Anyone that can read a book can read the constitution. The 10th amendment ratified in 1791 was specifically designed to provide clarity on states’ rights. If the power is not specifically enumerated as a power to the federal government in the constitution, then that power/authority is with the states. No place in the constitution does the federal government have the power to keep a state from leaving the Union. Therefore, the power to leave is with the states. And since the states joined the Union as a choice, they can leave. Many historians and constitutional authorities have written about this. Try reaching out beyond MSNBC for your history lessons.


Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now let’s face it Brewster, you’re a socialist and a federalist. People like you can care less about the constitution. Why don’t you just admit it

[Brewster]

and you are a loser.