"peaceful and democratic assertion of independence" TOTAL LIE! Seizing federal forts is peaceful? Did the south consult its slaves for this "democratic" choice? Oh that's right! Slave are not people let alone citizens! Keep posting Johnny reb! You amuse us all!
STILL WAITING. Tell me how "the federal government was in violation of the terms of the constitution". Then pray explain the great evils of that most cruel despot James Buchanon against whom the poor south went into rebellion (seven states left before old abe's inauguration). And after you have thrilled us with your accumen, leave our nation. Take your hilljack progeny with you.
@blueasblueis The right of the states to secede was a given from the start. If you understand the 9th and 10th amendments, you cannot FAIL to understand the point.
But, we understand, reading comprehension is just so damned hard.
@mmaier2112 WHERE in the constitution does it say states and leave and join at will? Not in the 9th and 10th amendments! And since you are SO smart, reading comprehension boy, try answering the original questions: TELL ME HOW "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THE CONSITUTUION" as claimed at 1:54? Then tell me about the cruelties of that montebank James Buchanon against whom the poor south rebelled (seven states left before old abe's inauguration)! WAITING!!
@blueasblueis You're pretty dim, ain't ya? The Constitution is silent on the right for a state to leave the country. Therefore it is a right reserved to the states and/or their people.
@mmaier2112 by that logic if a state thought it had the "right" to kill all Baptists within its borders you'd be ok with that! You still wont answer HOW "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THE CONSITUTUION" as claimed at 1:54? or describe the the cruelties of despostic James Buchanan against whom the poor south went into rebellion against (seven states left before old abe"s inauguration). You're a coward as well as traitor.
@blueasblueis I have no idea of the specifics this video's authors meant by that. How would I? If you ignorant of the many reasons the CSA was created, that's hardly my problem to remedy.
You're being an emoting dimwit here regarding the Baptists. The BOR covers your silly example, as would probably every single state constitution as well.
As for coward and traitor? No more than Washington and Jefferson. But you myopic dolts always have reasons 1776 is so different than 1861.
@mmaier2112 Too stupid or cowardly to answer my simple questions. Par. "Hurah! Hurah! We bring the jubilee! Hurah! Hurah! It's the flag that makes you free! So we sing the chorus from Atlanta to the sea! While we were marching through Georgia!" I'll think of you on September 12th this year when I am burning the flag of treason.
@blueasblueis buchanan was actually the reason the Union based on consent survived another four years. despotic? cruel? nothing historical supports these assertions...
Stupid. Who attacked who.. The south (who succeeded by the way) attacked the North FIRST at Fort Sumter. That's an act of war. Lincoln did nothing wrong. How can he invade his own country, if they already left the U.S?
@TheImperialistStates "How can he invade his own country, if they already left the U.S?" Lincoln nonetheless violated the Constitution by going to war without a declaration of war from Congress, among other things. And Lincoln did a lot of things wrong, from suspending habeas corpus, to confiscating firearms from northern civilians, to allowing war policies against the south in direct conflict with the Geneva convention, the list goes on.
@RevBillyRayCollins The South attacked the North first. The Confederate States of America was not recognized as a country. There is NO nation to declare war on. The U.S never declared war on the Native Americans did they? No they didn't. Lincoln didn't have to ask congress to declare war on a country that didn't exist.
@TheImperialistStates Who cares if no one else recognized them as a country, the CSA recognized themself, thats all that matters. The CSA created thier own govt and it acted independently of the US in all areas. The actions the US took against the Natives were illegal, the natives were in fact independent nations. I dont care what others say. Lincoln did need a declaration of war.
@tomitstube Who is apologizing for southern slavery? No one is. But keep in mind, the south werent the only ones to have slaves, the four border states which sided with the Union had thousands of slaves, and werent subject to freedom under the emancipation.
@RevBillyRayCollins ~ "who's apologizing for southern slavery"... well at least you admit your racist and bigoted "heritage".
"keep in mind.. the four border states... had thousands of slaves..." and thus why there was a war to end slavery.
but you are right about millions of racists in the north, dr. mlk said he never saw the hatred he saw in the south like the hatred he saw when marching for the end of housing segregation in chicago, 1966. 2 years b-4 being gunned down in memphis.
@tomitstube " well at least you admit your racist and bigoted "heritage"." What are you talking about? My point was that slavery is in no relatve topic towards the War between the States unless one says the war had nothing to do with slavery, which is correct.
@tomitstube Might I ask why you replaced War between the States with Civil War? There was nothing civil about it.
I am actually not caucasian.
A lot of things changed in America. Lincoln was assasinated, military dictatorships were set up in the south by radical Republicans, Democrats dominated southern elections, black codes originated in the north, and some of the most scandalous presidential administrations occured for decades. And a rise of big government. The end of slavery
@RevBillyRayCollins ~ american civil war is the correct terminology. everything you mentioned after the war was related to slavery. except "scandalous presidents", which is unrelated, and you forgot to mention the gilded age of robber barons, the rise of the left... but again, unrelated to why 600,000 people died between 1861 to 1865.
"military dictatorships", are you talking about the white christian confederates who formed the ku klux klan and 90 years of lynchings and segregation?
@tomitstube No it is not the correct terminology considering it wasn't a civil war. A civil war is a nation at war with itself; there were in fact two nations in this conflict.
Everything relates back to slavery? I dont think so. Thats absurd statement, and very far stretched.
By military dictatorships I meant the puppet govts the radical republicans set up. Stop acting dumb, well I guess its not an act.
@tomitstube Well let's talk about something specifically so you can prove to yourself that you're not a dummy.
Actually I'd love to debate politics with you but I don't know if your interested in that. So why not you try to convince me that Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, because I'm sure Abe is your pal and the U.S. education system has brainwashed you into thinking he did so.
@tomitstube No, sadly that's not the truth. The Emancipation Proclamation, EP, did not free a single slave (even the History Channel says so). That document called for the realease of the slaves in the seceded states, the very same states the US Govt no longer had authority over, Abe himself said it was simply a "war measure." The EP did NOT however even try to free the slaves in the 5 border states that sided with the Union: MD, MO, KY, DE, WV. The thousands of slaves there were to
@tomitstube remain in bondage under Lincolns discretion. In fact the EP left out counties in the seceded states under control of the Union for emancipation. What freed the slaves was the 13 amendment, which came after Abes assination and was something he never worked on.
@RevBillyRayCollins ~ "what freed the slaves was the 13(th) amendment... and was something he (abe) never worked on".
and what was the emancipation proclamation he signed on jan 1, 1963? that freed all slaves? that isn't a precursor to the 13 amendment?! lincoln was an abolitionist, that's why the south seceded after he was elected!
it's amazing how you blame abe lincoln for slavery but not the south. i'm done listening to your revisionist nonsense.
@tomitstube No the EP didn't free all the slaves, google it. It didn't free a single one.
Abe was no abolitionist, in fact he supported the deportation of the blacks to Liberia, google that to. Abe once said "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races ..." It goes on; more in line with the KKK than the NAACP. Not really an abolitionist. Oh I blame north and south for slavery.
@tomitstube was not a result of the war, considering 4 southern states ratified it before the war ended; nonetheless the Union could have passed the amendment much earlier had they of actually been concerned about the slaves.
And Lincoln's responsibility as Commander in Chief to protect the disunified Union justifies why he waged war on the South to begin with. Think it's easy for a man to order tens of thousands of soldiers to a battlefield? Try putting yourself in his place next time. Any lesser or man would have faltered. Lincoln was arguably the best president this nation EVER had. It's just a shame advanced technology and old military tactics led to over 600,000 deaths in four years. Godbless our country...
@rockndude87 constitutionaly seceding. Let the south secede, and then if we must try to unify the two nations, I would find a peaceful solution, it may take awile, but over 620000 peoples lives are far more important. The best presidents are the ones who follow the constitution, Lincoln violated the constitution more so than any other country.
First of all the South DID NOT point our their cause for independency in a peaceful manner! They attacked Fort Sumter, raised an army before Lincoln did, and committed a VERY treasonous act. People still argue if it's treason or not but still by morality and principle that IS treason. Plus fighting for independency while denying freedom to an entire people is very hypocritical, even though 10% of Southerners actually owned slaves. I may admire their spirit, not their motives or actions.
@rockndude87 I must respond before you poison the minds of any many people. The south did try peace, it failed. First they simply tried seceding in hopes that would do the trick, clearly the union wasnt about to let them go quitely. Secondly, Jeff Davis sent officials before the war started to DC to try and "buy" their way out. The CSA was going to pay for the southern portion of the national debt and for any federal property in the south. They were turned down. It wasnt until the Union started
@rockndude87 to play Chicken, and forced the confederates to play their hand was their violence. Secondly if what the south did was treason, then how come no one was ever tired for it? Besides, the definition of treason in the Const is nothing alike what the south did. You seem to forget that the north had thousands of slaves until 1865. Abe wanted to unify the country by waging war on itself? Wheres the logic in that? If I were in his shoes, I wouldnt have tried to stop the CSA from
@rockndude87 You accuse the south of being hypicrits when you yourself are a hypocrit. You said that what the south did was treason however, the constitution states otherwise because in the constitution it says that "When in the course of human events it becomes necesariy for one group of people to disolve the political bands that have connected them to one another that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government" The United States Constitution.
@5ti01qs You're thinking of the wrong document. That's from the Declaration of Independence... And fighting for the independence of a country that protects the institution of slavery is, in fact, very hypocritical. Meaning, fighting for one's freedom but denying another freedom is wrong.
"Those who deny freedom to others do not deserve freedom themselves"
@rockndude87 Yes I agree that slavery was wrong however you have to realise that from 1776 to 1883 a Black slave was considered personal property and seeing as how the constitution states that you have the right to own property those who did own slaves believed that the federal government was going against the constitution and so they seceded. Another thing I would like to point out is that in every Southern state more than half of the southerners did not own any slaves.
@5ti01qs So just because a document says something makes it right? This is an issue that should have been settled before the Constitution was drafted because slavery distorted our Democracy for generations. Also if you read my original comment you'd know that I am well aware that a minority of Southerners owned slaves. And Southerners weren't seceding because of the Constitution's stance on slavery, but that their economy would be in serious risk without slavery.
@DukeofWellington91 ~ the emancipation proclamation freed slaves by executive order.
the south executed all black war prisoners fighting for the north, thus leading to the starvation and deaths of thousands of whites prisoners on both sides. the south was especially brutal to northern prisoners. the south's refusal to treat blacks as humanely as whites is just another example of the south's racist beliefs and reason for the civil war.
@tomitstube what you fail to relise is that the South did not have much to give to the northern prisoners of war where as the north did have plenty to give to the Confederate POWs. Furthermore the Confederates lacked supplys such as food but still did their best to see that the yankee prisoners of war got food where as the north had plenty supplys and refused to give them to the Confederate Prisoners of War.
@5ti01qs ~ you're just making shit up. before the south started executing all their black war prisoners, there was good treatment on both sides, prisoner swaps were made etc. then grant told the south to treat the blacks as good as the whites and the south summarily refused. that's how it fell apart, the racist south then took out their anger on white prisoners. they were starved and worked to death on purpose.
@tomitstube actually I am not just makeing $hit up. You fail to realise that while the South was an agriculture based economy, their main exports were cotton and tobacco so theirfore, the South did not have much food at the start of the war. Furthermore, while the south did grow cotton most of it was used to make coats for the Confederate officers instead of bed sheets, etc. To continue, during the war, the Union caused a masive blockade of all Southern ports and this caused the south to not
@mmaier2112 ~ i see, so you disagree with an executive order to end slavery? because it's conveniently unconstitutional when you disagree with it? then you would have to admit the south seceded because of slavery, and i suppose you're part of the so-called "constitutionalists" who want to repeal the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that go much further in equal rights? that a problem too? and states rights? they only apply when you agree with them?
@tomitstube I disagree with every single executive order enacted from the start. It's not a power the president was granted, therefore it is illegal. This is not hard for anyone with an elementary-grade school level of reading comprehension to understand, yet it constantly seems to elude "educated" adults somehow.
If you want a dictator, have the balls to say so.
How could the south's secession be peaceful when the Confederate army invaded the NEUTRAL state of Kentucky (September 4, 1861)? And then there's the bombardment of Fort Sumter, of course....
How could the south's secession be democratic when almost 70% of the adult (20+) population in the 11 seceding states had no political power simply because of their gender/race? By definition, that is oligarchy, not democracy. Here's a rundown of each seceding state and the percentage of its adult population that was disenfranchised:
What I find rather strange is that after Lincoln (a republican) united south states and north states together, the South Became the most right winged. Today, there is a very high rate of repubilcans in the south.
@gulbirk No. First of all Lincoln didnt unite the north and south, if anything he drew the line in the sand. He only united the sides in a geographical sense after he murdered over 620,000 innocent people. Secondly after the war, the south historically voted democratic until about the 1950s when they realized their views are more like the Republicans. They voted Democratic for so long due to the fact of Lincoln and the Republican puppet govts set up during reconstruction. The Republicans
@gulbirk back then had very different political views than the Republicans today. The same goes for the Democrats during the time of Jackson, very much different than today. So no, its not strange.
@gulbirk back then had very different political views than the Republicans today. The same goes for the Democrats during the time of Jackson, very much different than today. So no, its not strange.
The garantee of democracy was the right of secession. Lincon ended democracy. The consent to be ruled is the foundation of the peoples contract with it's goverment. We lost the choice to give consecnt in Lincon's war. Murder of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and the branding of thousands as "disloyal citizens" has forever injured their decendants. Perhaps Lincon and Joseph Stalin have a great deal in comon.
One minor problem.....Fort Sumpter. The moment YOU Southerners put the fire to the hole and opened fire on a Union Fort, YOU started the war! After that, all is fair in love and war.
@TheMedievalMan I agree with you. But only one side mobilized an army of invasion and subjugation. For that, and that reason alone, Lincoln has a special place in the annals of the history of tyrants.
@CauseAndEffectPost Do you truly think it would have been better to allow southerners to own slaves who they would often beat, rape, torture and murder? Do you think the enslavement and abuse of fellow human beings was just dandy? If so, what the fuck is WRONG with you?! I'm not denying Lincoln's faults, I'm just saying that slavery should not be tolerated. It's primitive and evil.
@blackkakari No one here thinks slavery was okay, we all condemn it. But keep in mind both sides are at fault when it comes to slavery, both the Union and the Confederacy had slaves, you cant just blame one side for it.
In the phrase "to prevent their peaceful and democratic assertion of independence" please define 'democratic'. Any society that has slaves cannot possibly do *anything* 'democratically' by definition.
@MrMathamagician Slavery was without argument the most abominable of institutions, but by your assertion, the American Revolution would also be illegitimate and undemocratic. It's important to note that had the South been allowed to depart in peace, slavery as an institution would have self destructed rather quickly on its own. The institution simply could not have survived with a free North only a border away. One need only look to the Brazil example to see this economic law in action.
@CauseAndEffectPost Excellent point. I think you correctly identify the dangers of making a sweeping generalization based on a narrow definition. In truth things are usually more nuanced and not black or white. This is the reasoning by which I disagree with you assertion that Lincoln was a Tyrant.
It's also important to note that if the US didn't revolt we 'probably' would have become independent anyway just like Canada and Australia. If you rewrite history it's easy to justify anything.
@MrMathamagician I actually agree with your point about Canada and Australia, and would actually further add that had the colonies NOT revolted (as you put it), slavery would have ended quite peacefully in 1833 when Britain ended it across the empire through compensated emancipation.
It's not a rewrite of history that I'm proposing. It's to say that when the South asserted independence, Lincoln had a choice. And he chose, like King George, to FORCE reunion by military force. Tyranny defined.
@CauseAndEffectPost Yes, the Revolution was also illegitimate and undemocratic.
"had the South been allowed to depart in peace, slavery as an institution would have self destructed"
Based on their own declarations of causes for secession, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Mississippi thought that staying in the union put their slave system in greater danger than seceding did.
If the 7 deep south states had been allowed to secede, they would have bordered union slave states, not free states.
@MrMathamagician It was widely accepted in both the North and the South that slavery was in theory morally wrong and people generally believed that it would die out, the issue they had was how to do this without destroying the economy. The beliefs about slavery in the North and South were not actually that different. It was considered an unfortunate historical inheritance.
Southerns and Northerns will NEVER be able to get along . this is proved by our history. Let us alone, the celtic peoples of the south and you northerners can go on about your business.
@TheyHearUsNow Lincoln never freed the slaves and he destroyed the union in terms of a voluntary association of states by forcing the southern states to stay at gunpoint. The emancipation proclamation was only meant to free the slaves in the seceded states, not the slaves in the border states with the north. But still the federal army couldnt free the slaves in the south, they didnt have the power. Lincoln stated it was just a military measure.
@RevBillyRayCollins Lincoln wasn't forcing the south to stay. He and the rest of the Republicans were delighted to see the south vacate their seats in congress. Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address that he wasn't going to use force against the south unless they fired first, which they did at Fort Sumter. Lincoln was enforcing the law when he invaded Virginia. If the southern states really thought that secession was constitutional, they would have taken their case to the Supreme Court.
@RevBillyRayCollins Virginia committed treason by defending South Carolina and attacking the Union army at Manassas Junction. South Carolina committed treason by attacking Fort Sumter.
@KayBeeEee1983 SC and the other southern states werent committing treason because they acknowledged their own leaving of the union through secession. They left, they dont abide by the Const any longer. But Lincoln never acknowledged their leaving, he said they remained with the union, so going to war with SC which according to Abe was still in the union then Abe was committing treason for levying war against the states.
"They left, they dont abide by the Const any longer"
If they leave without going to the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of secession then they are revolting and choosing war, which is fine if neo-confederates admit that secession is unconstitutional and they were trying to start a revolutionary war, but most refuse to admit it. They claim secession is constitutional and the south was trying to leave in peace, which is a joke
@KayBeeEee1983 Well sure slavery in the southern states and some in the northern states was increasing but so was pressure from foriegn powers and production of synthetic fibers. The south was trying to leave in peace look at what Jeff Davis tried to do, and hell the Virginia Assembly did something similar. Lets put aside the constitutionality of secession and take a look. If part of a country whishes to leave because they see faults in the govt, why wouldnt you let them? Why would someone
@KayBeeEee1983 I wouldnt call the ability to favor both parties and save countless lives as bogus.
Well what are the faults in secession then? How would it harm the general welfare? By not allowing the south to secede your hurting democracy, they voted to leave. I think you should try walking in the shoes of the secessionists, see what they wanted. I have nothing against the north, unlike yourself who hates the south, my problems are with the feds. They were nothing but tyrants.
@RevBillyRayCollins Saying that the south was trying to leave peacefully is bogus.
Imagine the manifest destiny period if the states hadn't united, if there were 3 federations instead of 1. There would've been constant fighting with each other, with Mexico, and with the Native Americans.
I don't hate the south, I hate confederates. They're extremely selfish and superficial. They focus almost entirely on the present, very little on the past, and never think about the future.
@KayBeeEee1983 What possible 3 federations? Im not denying anything you said, but it was presidents like Mckinley, Roosevelt, and Wilson who invoked Lincolns name and wanted to conquer the planet. Teddy being a person I highly respect but a jerk on foreign policy. George W Bush justified some of his questionable actions by saying great presidents like Lincoln and FDR did it.
I think we should go back to how the country was run in the past. More power to the states and a controlled federal
@RevBillyRayCollins The colonists knew that they were committing treason when they declared independence from the UK. They knew what they were doing was technically illegal. Neo-Confederates think what the southern states did was perfectly legal and constitutional.
The colonists didn't go to court, but they went to the king. Look up the Olive Branch Petition. The south went to Lincoln, but the president is not king.
The primary southern cause was slavery. Deny it all you want, but that's a fact.
@KayBeeEee1983 Bullshit the primary cause was slavery. If that was the case why didnt Jefferson Davis also mention it as a reason for secession in his inagural address. If slavery was the cause why didnt the Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, or Arkansas legislatures say slavery was their reason for leaving the union.
Well show me a case where during the "invasions" a confederate was arrested and placed on trial for seceding. If there was no point in debating secession after Sumter then
@RevBillyRayCollins Who cares why Davis didn't mention it? He's one man. His Vice President gave a whole speech about slavery being the "cornerstone" of the confederacy.
Only 1/3 of VA's, TN's, AR's, and NC's legislatures wanted secession to preserve slavery, that's why the didn't secede right away. But after Sumter, another 1/3 seceded because of states' rights.
Andrew Johnson pardoned all the confederate leaders you stupid asshole. Read a fucking history book you ignorant bastard.
@KayBeeEee1983 Davis is the god damned president, what do you mean he doesnt matter?
Those states revoted for secession and not once was slavery the primary reason.
You said the norths invasion of the south was meant to arrest the confederate leaders and place them on trial for seceding, not treason, but secession. Find me a case then where the confederates were arrested AND placed on TRIAL for SECESSION. Thats what you said.
@RevBillyRayCollins It means that Davis was one man, and he never denied that the south's secession was about slavery? Davis was smart. He knew that if the British and French thought secession was about slavery, there's no way they would intervene on the side of the CSA. Every other politician, and a lot of the states themselves, were complete morons
I always said the invasion was to arrest southerners for treason and that secession was illegitimate. Show me where I said secession was a crime
@KayBeeEee1983 "I certainly dont see the union folks rushing to see that the confederates are placed on the stand for somehow violating the const by seceding."
That's what the southern "invasions" were. They were police actions to arrest the leaders of the Confederacy. You have to arrest a person before you can put them on trial.
After Sumter there was no point for the supreme court, or anyone else, to debate secession. Sumter was a crime because South Carolina hadn't legally seceded
I was talking about the north not bringing up charges against the south over their secession. You replied thats what the invasions were about, to capture and arrest the confederate leaders and have them put on trial for violating the const by seceding.
@RevBillyRayCollins It's your fault that you have no reading comprehension. You can't read 2 sentences without forgetting what the first sentence was about. You are a complete and utter moron.
@KayBeeEee1983 When I was talking about why didnt the north take the south to court then and you replied thats what the invasions of the south were about, it clearly means, according to you, the union army invaded the south to arrest the confederate leaders and have them put on trial for seceding. So if thats the case, then you should have no problem finding me a case where a confederate leader was arrested and put on trial for seceding. These arent my views, because I know its wrong, but you
@KayBeeEee1983 First of all, your previous statement was that the invasion of the south was to capture arrest and hold a trial for confederate leaders over SECESSION NOT TREASON. Secondly, to prove you still havent answered my question, Davis was charged with treason, but not once was he ever actually tried in a court of law over the matter. Find me a case where a CSA leader was arrested and put on trial for secession, that is what you said the whole pupose of the southern invasion was.
@RevBillyRayCollins "your previous statement was that the invasion of the south was to capture arrest and hold a trial for confederate leaders over SECESSION NOT TREASON"
You're a total moron. I always said treason. I have never said secession. If you think so, it's because you can't read
"to prove you still havent answered my question, Davis was charged with treason, but not once was he ever actually tried in a court of law over the matter."
Nixon never got tried either, BECAUSE HE WAS PARDONED
@KayBeeEee1983 Good god, actually read what you said. I was talking about the north, using your BS argument, should have put the confederates on trial for illegally seceding. You then responded and said thats what the southern invasions were about, arresting the confederate leaders and having them placed on trial. Just after I was discussing SECESSION you said thats what they should be arrested and tried for. That conversation wasnt over treason, but secession and then thats what you said to me.
@RevBillyRayCollins I said "Sumter was a crime because South Carolina hadn't legally seceded yet."
Now, if I said "hadn't LEGALLY seceded" shouldn't that tell you that I'm not talking about secession being a crime? Haven't I repeatedly said that TREASON was the south's crime? Haven't I repeatedly said that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGITIMATE, not necessarily ILLEGAL? This is what I mean when I say you can't read 2 sentences without forgetting what the first sentence was about.
@KayBeeEee1983 No, Im sure thats what you meant to say but thats not what you said to me, assuming by mistake. You just cant admit you made that little mistake. If Im talking about secession and you immediately respond by saying thats what the union was trying to arrest the confederate leaders for, without mentioning treason, what am I supposed to think? Im sure it was a mistake on your part, but a mistake doesnt become a problem until you refuse to correct it. You know who said that?
@RevBillyRayCollins Of course you're going to say I made a mistake because the alternative would be to admit to yourself that you're a complete moron. My only mistake was thinking you had a working brain cell.
@KayBeeEee1983 Maybe you didnt mean to say that, but you still said it. But you arent admitting you said it because you know Im right and your wrong. So since you havent taken that comment back, find me a case where a confederate leader was arrested and tries for secession. Keep in mind secession isnt treason.
Who's talking about Nixon, he wasnt a confederate leader.
@KayBeeEee1983 Were we not talking about arresting and holding trial for confederate leaders? I dont see Nixon being related to the subject at hand.
Well you cant find me a case then. You proved yourself wrong, thats not a suprise. Dont bother bringing it up if you cant prove it, your wasting both of our time. Johnson didnt pardon them all, Grant pardoned more. Jeff Davis was never officially pardoned, released from jail yes, but never pardoned. They could have tried him for secession.
@KayBeeEee1983 I do grasp the concept that your ignoring the topic at hand.
Im sorry, I meant to say treason, that was indeed my fault. But they could have tried him for his help in creating the plot to secede supposedly unconstitutionally. Of course they didnt. Proving you wrong that it was not their intention.
@RevBillyRayCollins Are you aware that Lincoln was assassinated in 1865? Assassinated means killed. Lincoln was not the president when Davis and the other confederate leaders were arrested. Grant pardoned the confederate leaders, not Johnson. Grant's administration is notorious for being the most corrupt presidential administration in american history.
@KayBeeEee1983 So are you saying because Abe was killed, the whole reason for the war, according to you, meaning arresting the confederate leaders and holding trial for treason, was just thrown out the window? Jefferson Davis wasnt ever pardoned, he could have been put on trial, Robert E Lee and James Longstreet, the latter working for Pres Grant, went without pardons for awile. Its also hard to tell, there were pardons sent out from Johnson and Grant pardoning some confederates while others
@RevBillyRayCollins "because Abe was killed...arresting the confederate leaders and holding trial for treason, was just thrown out the window?"
More or less. Johnson was a southerner. Grant's administration was corrupt. Lincoln strongly advocated reconciliation with the southern people, but I don't know if he ever specifically talked about the politicians. I'm sure, though I don't know, that he didn't want to get the southern generals in trouble because they fought for duty, not secession.
@KayBeeEee1983 That may indeed be the case, but if they really wanted to conict them of treason they had plenty of opportunities. Andrew Johnson said during the war that he wanted to hang all of the confederate leaders but once he became president that feeling obviously changed.
@RevBillyRayCollins Johnson was a filthy lying power-hungry rat. He was a Senator, but didn't resign his position when Tennessee seceded. If he were a Rep, that would be a bit more understandable because he could say that his district was unionist so he still represented them. Johnson represented the Tennessee legislature, which voted to secede, so his duty was to resign, but he couldn't give up his power in the Senate. I've always thought that Johnson had something to do with Lincoln's death
@KayBeeEee1983 were exempt. But even with some Confederate leaders never being pardoned and some being pardoned many years after the war, not a single person was charged with treason. The union had the ability to charge many men but never did so.
@KayBeeEee1983 government, a govt that didnt go to war so carelessly, and thats not just Abe. Im not worried about the future, so long as we can make how the govt was run in the past, like during Jeffersons, Washingtons, Tylers, Madisons, and Monroes admin, how its run today.
It was a last option, they had no choice if SC wanted to do what they felt was right. War is war, its bloody, its how it will always be. Cant change that. Many wars are pointless, this war had good intentions.
How do you sleep at night? You and other confederates must compartmentalize everything.
In the federal system, the national government is supposed to have more power than the states (Article VI, Clause 2). The "check" on the national government is the Constitution and the Supreme Court. If the states have more power than the national government, it's a Confederation.
The Federalists wanted a strong national government, not an all-powerful one.
@KayBeeEee1983 from the feds that they stole from the states. Like the feds war on drugs, obamacare, no child left behind etc. Yes the federalists believed in a strong national govt, with more power with the feds and less power with the states.
@KayBeeEee1983 deny them the right to leave when that portion of the country democratically voted to do so? Why would someone turn down a peaceful solution favoring both parties? Why would someone provoke the other side into firing first knowing a war will soon follow? Why would a president do that? Why would you destroy federalism, in favor of a strong federal government? Why would you support tyranny? Why not give them what they want in order to prevent bloodshed?
@KayBeeEee1983 Sure, SC said dont resupply the fort or it will be fired upon. Lincoln resupplied the fort and SC wasnt bluffing. Lincoln said it himself that he provoked SC into firing. Of course SC was going to fight if need be, they told Abe to pack up and get out or else. I wouldnt call the rest of the country hostages however because they had no role in the conflict at the time. SC wanted the federals to leave the fort, they could care less about the rest of the country. And my bloodsheld
@RevBillyRayCollins "SC said dont resupply the fort or it will be fired upon. Lincoln resupplied the fort and SC wasnt bluffing."
Yeah, that sounds very rational and peaceful. South Carolina was trying to kill the men inside the fort by starving them to death.
"they told Abe to pack up and get out or else."
So you have no problem with strongarm tactics. Do you think you're helping the confederates look better? You're just describing how unreasonable and violent they were.
@KayBeeEee1983 remark was for the future war Between the States, not the Ft Sumter fiasco. Not a single person died during the bombardment, except for I think 2 union soldiers in one of their own cannon malfunctions or something like that, so no one was killed during the actual firing on the fort.
Federalism is best defined as: a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states).
@KayBeeEee1983 I think we should respectively agree to disagree on the issue of who was committing treason, actually we should agree to disagree on many issues. I'll give you this: I enjoy your strong viewed opinions and I appluad you for standing up for them. However I may not agree with them.
Well yeah thats what federalsim and a confederation is, whats your point? Today we follow the US Const and that created a federalism style of govt. Thus we must follow federalism, in my opinion to its
@KayBeeEee1983 Its because you cant handle the truth. You get very personal in these arguments, you shouldnt let your emotions control you.
I never said FDR wanted to conquer the planet, that was referring to George W Bush and some of his domestic policies justifying them that FDR did it. I said Mckinley, [Teddy] Roosevelt, and Wilson. But yes they did want to conquer the planet. Look at our actions in the Spanish American War, the Panama Canal, the supposed League of Nations, and WW1.
@RevBillyRayCollins I have contempt for you because you keep saying stupid things like the bombardment of Sumter was "a last option, they had no choice if SC wanted to do what they felt was right" even after I repeatedly mention that they should have gone to the Supreme Court. You say they tried to secede peacefully when they only tried ONE half-assed, ill-conceived peaceful method. And there's another example of your idiocy: "Did the colonists go to the courts when secededing from England?"
@KayBeeEee1983 Well I certainly dont see the union folks rushing to see that the confederates are placed on the stand for somehow violating the const by seceding. I never read any accounts in 1860-61 where the Union was trying to have a supreme court case with the confederates trying to deny the right of secession. Ive never read any accounts where the Supreme Court voiced its opinion and said this issue should be decided through the courts not by just leaving and war.
@RevBillyRayCollins "I certainly dont see the union folks rushing to see that the confederates are placed on the stand for somehow violating the const by seceding."
That's what the southern "invasions" were. They were police actions to arrest the leaders of the Confederacy. You have to arrest a person before you can put them on trial.
After Sumter there was no point for the supreme court, or anyone else, to debate secession. Sumter was a crime because South Carolina hadn't legally seceded yet.
@KayBeeEee1983 why according to you was the union invading the south to force them to stay in the union? It sounds like they want the debate to be a little more physical. If the debate is over then there would be no point in going to war with the south to prove yourself right. They would have just let the south go, thats what would happen if the debate was over.
@RevBillyRayCollins "why according to you was the union invading the south to force them to stay in the union?"
I said the union invaded the south to arrest the southern leaders and put them on trial for treason.
"If the debate is over then there would be no point in going to war with the south to prove yourself right. They would have just let the south go, thats what would happen if the debate was over."
You're so fucking stupid it's starting to make me laugh inside. See my previous answer.
@KayBeeEee1983 fullest, and that means bringing that unconstitutional power the feds have back to the states. The CSA no longer exists, only the USA. So I support what the US Const says. However my personal views lie with the CSA during this conflict. But I live in the 21 century, where the US Const is our govt. So that means federalism too.
I hope your joking about the federalists right? And you call me crazy....
@KayBeeEee1983 You must be mistaken with the federalists, who originally championed the idea of federalism, and then went on to support a stronger national government and less sovereignty among the states, people like Alexander Hamilton.
@TheyHearUsNow God bless Lincoln? That's a joke right? You do realize he wanted to send all slaves to Liberia correct? Do you also realize that he offered the south a constitutional guarantee to protect their slavery if they stayed in the union? Grow up.
when will brave men stop waiting for the consent of the brainwashed majority? when will the forgotten spirit of freedom, once again fill the hearts of americans? why are we letting our liberty slip farther and farther out of our grasp? we must remind our fellow americans of the value of personal freedom from tyrant governments.. combat the lies that have been fed to the people for so long...wake the blind from their deep sleep, if they dont want to see, to hell with them..we cant afford to wait
@longfootbuddy What lies? You mean the lie that slavery had nothing to do with the south's secession? The lie that the war was about taxes? The lie that the south tried to secede peacefully? The lie that slavery was dying in the south? The lie that the civil war was a carbon copy of the American Revolution? Those lies?
@KayBeeEee1983 Slavery had absolutely nothing to do with VA NC AK or TNs secession. Look at what both Lincoln and Davis talk about in their first inagural addresses about tarrifs/taxes/imposts/free trade. The south did try to pay for the southern half of the national debt and for federal property but were turned down by Abe. Slavery was begginning to die from pressure from foreign powers and the rise of synthetic fiber. Those 2 wars are very similar, both fighting for their independence.
@KayBeeEee1983 lincoln attacked the south because they were trying to leave the tyrant union.. theyve brainwashed you all into thinking it was to free blacks
What is wrong with you confederates? South Carolina fired on Sumter before ANY military action was taken by the Union. It seems like you're all in denial. The south controlled the Union for most of the time before the civil war. The supreme court was always majority southern. The president was southern 2/3 of the time, and almost every northern president was sympathetic to slavery. If the Union was tyrannical it's because the south was tyrannical.
@KayBeeEee1983 im not going to argue with a brainwashed turd like yourself.. you hold to a history of lies, and are unable to decifer freedom from tyranny
@longfootbuddy You're not going to argue because you know that I'm not brainwashed and will counter every idiotic thing you say. Name one lie that I've said.
@KayBeeEee, "If you can't handle the truth, then stop responding to me."
Let's let the posts decide. Do you actually think I am personally debating and responding to you? Either defending myself or attacking you? Of course I can't win an Internet debate head to head, but let's let the reader decide. I want them to see your posts.
@KayBeeEee, "Now I see, now you think you are better than I am, that's it!" "Absolutely. You're one of the worst types of human being. The only thing that would make you worse would be if you were a serial killer." That's what I like to hear. That's all this has turned into a "peeing" contest for'ya, seeing how bad you can trash someone. It was no different in Lincoln's time, with his thugs. You just a good dramatization of the modern day liberal. From here, I'll simply let the readers decide.
@KayBeeEee, "The great southern generals, Lee, Longstreet, who survived the war reentered society and functioned as human beings with integrity. Those weren't your people. Your people were Forrest the KKK founder and Edmund Ruffin."
There you go telling me about my own people again! You don't know doodle about my people, Lee or any of them. If you did, you would know what he said about things after the war. Things that was done to him as well. Nor do you know about Forest and the KKK.
@360000mike "There you go telling me about my own people again! You don't know doodle about my people, Lee or any of them. If you did, you would know what he said about things after the war. Things that was done to him as well. Nor do you know about Forest and the KKK."
I'm not talking about what they SAID or THOUGHT. I'm talking about the way they FUNCTIONED IN SOCIETY. They didn't just give up on their people like you obviously have.
@KayBeeEee, "You're a homophobe," DID I SAY THAT?
"a racist," DID I SAY THAT? "a religious bigot," DID I SAY THAT? You started the religious slurs. I never mentioned religion until you did. " you're opposed to democracy and progress,"
And I said YOU don't know what DEMOCRACY is! And you don't! But you think you do. "you favor violent revolution." DID I SAY THAT? Why, you tell me things about myself I did not know!
@360000mike "You're a homophobe," DID I SAY THAT?"
Yes
I said "You condemned Lincoln for being gay, not for committing adultery."
You replied with "I condemn him for both!"
""a racist," DID I SAY THAT?"
Yes. You tried to diffuse (not defuse, look it up) blame for slavery. If you defend the CSA without also condemning slavery, then you are a racist, intrinsically. It's like Germans who deny the holocaust. The southern politicians seceded because of slavery. That is a clear FACT.
@360000mike ""a religious bigot," DID I SAY THAT?"
Yes. You accused me of not believing in God because I don't believe your bible.
"I said YOU don't know what DEMOCRACY is!"
No, you didn't say that, you just said democracy is bad and not what the founding fathers intended. Democracy is the people having political power. You seem to think democracy means "majority rule".
""you favor violent revolution." DID I SAY THAT?"
Yes. You ridicule democracy and you support war to settle secession.
@KayBeeEee, "Like you said, one needs only to look at your posts to see your character. You're a homophobe, a racist, a religious bigot, you're opposed to democracy and progress, you favor violent revolution.
And now you are labeling me! Where does your insults end? Where does your diatribe end? Do you have any integrity and morals at all? Undoubtedly not since you claim to be a liberal and only believe in the revisionist history of the moment. And this is what your kind has done to the country!
@360000mike "You're a homophobe, a racist, a religious bigot, you're opposed to democracy and progress, you favor violent revolution.
And now you are labeling me! Where does your insults end? Where does your diatribe end?"
If you can't handle the truth, then stop responding to me. It's not like I'm insulting your mother or making up other groundless insults (like you calling my beliefs "nothing of any substance" and saying I "don't believe in God" even though you know nothing about my beliefs.)
"peaceful and democratic assertion of independence" TOTAL LIE! Seizing federal forts is peaceful? Did the south consult its slaves for this "democratic" choice? Oh that's right! Slave are not people let alone citizens! Keep posting Johnny reb! You amuse us all!
blueasblueis 1 week ago
@blueasblueis he only "amuses" you, especially since all this is about a terrible war.
JohnnyCBCS 9 hours ago
STILL WAITING. Tell me how "the federal government was in violation of the terms of the constitution". Then pray explain the great evils of that most cruel despot James Buchanon against whom the poor south went into rebellion (seven states left before old abe's inauguration). And after you have thrilled us with your accumen, leave our nation. Take your hilljack progeny with you.
blueasblueis 1 week ago
@blueasblueis The right of the states to secede was a given from the start. If you understand the 9th and 10th amendments, you cannot FAIL to understand the point.
But, we understand, reading comprehension is just so damned hard.
mmaier2112 1 week ago
@mmaier2112 WHERE in the constitution does it say states and leave and join at will? Not in the 9th and 10th amendments! And since you are SO smart, reading comprehension boy, try answering the original questions: TELL ME HOW "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THE CONSITUTUION" as claimed at 1:54? Then tell me about the cruelties of that montebank James Buchanon against whom the poor south rebelled (seven states left before old abe's inauguration)! WAITING!!
blueasblueis 1 week ago
@blueasblueis You're pretty dim, ain't ya? The Constitution is silent on the right for a state to leave the country. Therefore it is a right reserved to the states and/or their people.
Is that simple enough for you to understand?
mmaier2112 1 week ago
@mmaier2112 by that logic if a state thought it had the "right" to kill all Baptists within its borders you'd be ok with that! You still wont answer HOW "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THE CONSITUTUION" as claimed at 1:54? or describe the the cruelties of despostic James Buchanan against whom the poor south went into rebellion against (seven states left before old abe"s inauguration). You're a coward as well as traitor.
blueasblueis 1 week ago
@blueasblueis I have no idea of the specifics this video's authors meant by that. How would I? If you ignorant of the many reasons the CSA was created, that's hardly my problem to remedy.
You're being an emoting dimwit here regarding the Baptists. The BOR covers your silly example, as would probably every single state constitution as well.
As for coward and traitor? No more than Washington and Jefferson. But you myopic dolts always have reasons 1776 is so different than 1861.
mmaier2112 1 week ago
@mmaier2112 Too stupid or cowardly to answer my simple questions. Par. "Hurah! Hurah! We bring the jubilee! Hurah! Hurah! It's the flag that makes you free! So we sing the chorus from Atlanta to the sea! While we were marching through Georgia!" I'll think of you on September 12th this year when I am burning the flag of treason.
blueasblueis 1 week ago
@blueasblueis So you can't differentiate between 1776 & 1861. Predictable...
Terribly sorry I'm not a mind-reader like yourself.
mmaier2112 1 week ago
@blueasblueis buchanan was actually the reason the Union based on consent survived another four years. despotic? cruel? nothing historical supports these assertions...
JohnnyCBCS 9 hours ago
Of course there were atrocities on both sides part, it was a war. Civil War is a oxymoron…
19CACTUS51 3 weeks ago
Stupid. Who attacked who.. The south (who succeeded by the way) attacked the North FIRST at Fort Sumter. That's an act of war. Lincoln did nothing wrong. How can he invade his own country, if they already left the U.S?
TheImperialistStates 2 months ago
@TheImperialistStates "How can he invade his own country, if they already left the U.S?" Lincoln nonetheless violated the Constitution by going to war without a declaration of war from Congress, among other things. And Lincoln did a lot of things wrong, from suspending habeas corpus, to confiscating firearms from northern civilians, to allowing war policies against the south in direct conflict with the Geneva convention, the list goes on.
RevBillyRayCollins 2 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins The South attacked the North first. The Confederate States of America was not recognized as a country. There is NO nation to declare war on. The U.S never declared war on the Native Americans did they? No they didn't. Lincoln didn't have to ask congress to declare war on a country that didn't exist.
TheImperialistStates 2 months ago
@TheImperialistStates Who cares if no one else recognized them as a country, the CSA recognized themself, thats all that matters. The CSA created thier own govt and it acted independently of the US in all areas. The actions the US took against the Natives were illegal, the natives were in fact independent nations. I dont care what others say. Lincoln did need a declaration of war.
RevBillyRayCollins 2 months ago
Care to site your sources? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just I'm skepticle.
CyberTechWolf 3 months ago
typical revisionist nonsense perpetuated by no doubt a southern slavery apologist.
the south instigated the war, and the war was over the south's idea that their "freedom" depended on denying that same freedom to black people.
tomitstube 3 months ago
@tomitstube Who is apologizing for southern slavery? No one is. But keep in mind, the south werent the only ones to have slaves, the four border states which sided with the Union had thousands of slaves, and werent subject to freedom under the emancipation.
RevBillyRayCollins 2 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins ~ "who's apologizing for southern slavery"... well at least you admit your racist and bigoted "heritage".
"keep in mind.. the four border states... had thousands of slaves..." and thus why there was a war to end slavery.
but you are right about millions of racists in the north, dr. mlk said he never saw the hatred he saw in the south like the hatred he saw when marching for the end of housing segregation in chicago, 1966. 2 years b-4 being gunned down in memphis.
tomitstube 1 month ago
@tomitstube " well at least you admit your racist and bigoted "heritage"." What are you talking about? My point was that slavery is in no relatve topic towards the War between the States unless one says the war had nothing to do with slavery, which is correct.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins ~ "...unless ones says the (civil) war had nothing to do with slavery, which is correct".
revisionist nonsense. lol, so tell me cracker, what changed in america after the civil war other than the end of slavery?
tomitstube 1 month ago
@tomitstube Might I ask why you replaced War between the States with Civil War? There was nothing civil about it.
I am actually not caucasian.
A lot of things changed in America. Lincoln was assasinated, military dictatorships were set up in the south by radical Republicans, Democrats dominated southern elections, black codes originated in the north, and some of the most scandalous presidential administrations occured for decades. And a rise of big government. The end of slavery
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins ~ american civil war is the correct terminology. everything you mentioned after the war was related to slavery. except "scandalous presidents", which is unrelated, and you forgot to mention the gilded age of robber barons, the rise of the left... but again, unrelated to why 600,000 people died between 1861 to 1865.
"military dictatorships", are you talking about the white christian confederates who formed the ku klux klan and 90 years of lynchings and segregation?
tomitstube 1 month ago
@tomitstube No it is not the correct terminology considering it wasn't a civil war. A civil war is a nation at war with itself; there were in fact two nations in this conflict.
Everything relates back to slavery? I dont think so. Thats absurd statement, and very far stretched.
By military dictatorships I meant the puppet govts the radical republicans set up. Stop acting dumb, well I guess its not an act.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins ~ i'm "acting dumb"? do you even listen to yourself? you are factually handicapped.
tomitstube 1 month ago
@tomitstube Well let's talk about something specifically so you can prove to yourself that you're not a dummy.
Actually I'd love to debate politics with you but I don't know if your interested in that. So why not you try to convince me that Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, because I'm sure Abe is your pal and the U.S. education system has brainwashed you into thinking he did so.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins ~ question; "so why not you try to convince me that abe lincoln freed the slaves."
answer; abe lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation, an executive order to free the slaves, jan. 1, 1863.
tomitstube 1 month ago
@tomitstube No, sadly that's not the truth. The Emancipation Proclamation, EP, did not free a single slave (even the History Channel says so). That document called for the realease of the slaves in the seceded states, the very same states the US Govt no longer had authority over, Abe himself said it was simply a "war measure." The EP did NOT however even try to free the slaves in the 5 border states that sided with the Union: MD, MO, KY, DE, WV. The thousands of slaves there were to
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@tomitstube remain in bondage under Lincolns discretion. In fact the EP left out counties in the seceded states under control of the Union for emancipation. What freed the slaves was the 13 amendment, which came after Abes assination and was something he never worked on.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins ~ "what freed the slaves was the 13(th) amendment... and was something he (abe) never worked on".
and what was the emancipation proclamation he signed on jan 1, 1963? that freed all slaves? that isn't a precursor to the 13 amendment?! lincoln was an abolitionist, that's why the south seceded after he was elected!
it's amazing how you blame abe lincoln for slavery but not the south. i'm done listening to your revisionist nonsense.
tomitstube 1 month ago
@tomitstube No the EP didn't free all the slaves, google it. It didn't free a single one.
Abe was no abolitionist, in fact he supported the deportation of the blacks to Liberia, google that to. Abe once said "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races ..." It goes on; more in line with the KKK than the NAACP. Not really an abolitionist. Oh I blame north and south for slavery.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@tomitstube The emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves.
DukeofWellington91 1 month ago
@tomitstube was not a result of the war, considering 4 southern states ratified it before the war ended; nonetheless the Union could have passed the amendment much earlier had they of actually been concerned about the slaves.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
The ends justify the means.
cannon0587 4 months ago
And Lincoln's responsibility as Commander in Chief to protect the disunified Union justifies why he waged war on the South to begin with. Think it's easy for a man to order tens of thousands of soldiers to a battlefield? Try putting yourself in his place next time. Any lesser or man would have faltered. Lincoln was arguably the best president this nation EVER had. It's just a shame advanced technology and old military tactics led to over 600,000 deaths in four years. Godbless our country...
rockndude87 4 months ago
@rockndude87 constitutionaly seceding. Let the south secede, and then if we must try to unify the two nations, I would find a peaceful solution, it may take awile, but over 620000 peoples lives are far more important. The best presidents are the ones who follow the constitution, Lincoln violated the constitution more so than any other country.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 months ago
First of all the South DID NOT point our their cause for independency in a peaceful manner! They attacked Fort Sumter, raised an army before Lincoln did, and committed a VERY treasonous act. People still argue if it's treason or not but still by morality and principle that IS treason. Plus fighting for independency while denying freedom to an entire people is very hypocritical, even though 10% of Southerners actually owned slaves. I may admire their spirit, not their motives or actions.
rockndude87 4 months ago
@rockndude87 I must respond before you poison the minds of any many people. The south did try peace, it failed. First they simply tried seceding in hopes that would do the trick, clearly the union wasnt about to let them go quitely. Secondly, Jeff Davis sent officials before the war started to DC to try and "buy" their way out. The CSA was going to pay for the southern portion of the national debt and for any federal property in the south. They were turned down. It wasnt until the Union started
RevBillyRayCollins 4 months ago
@rockndude87 to play Chicken, and forced the confederates to play their hand was their violence. Secondly if what the south did was treason, then how come no one was ever tired for it? Besides, the definition of treason in the Const is nothing alike what the south did. You seem to forget that the north had thousands of slaves until 1865. Abe wanted to unify the country by waging war on itself? Wheres the logic in that? If I were in his shoes, I wouldnt have tried to stop the CSA from
RevBillyRayCollins 4 months ago
@rockndude87 You accuse the south of being hypicrits when you yourself are a hypocrit. You said that what the south did was treason however, the constitution states otherwise because in the constitution it says that "When in the course of human events it becomes necesariy for one group of people to disolve the political bands that have connected them to one another that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government" The United States Constitution.
5ti01qs 1 month ago
@5ti01qs Thats the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@5ti01qs You're thinking of the wrong document. That's from the Declaration of Independence... And fighting for the independence of a country that protects the institution of slavery is, in fact, very hypocritical. Meaning, fighting for one's freedom but denying another freedom is wrong.
"Those who deny freedom to others do not deserve freedom themselves"
rockndude87 1 month ago
@rockndude87 Yes I agree that slavery was wrong however you have to realise that from 1776 to 1883 a Black slave was considered personal property and seeing as how the constitution states that you have the right to own property those who did own slaves believed that the federal government was going against the constitution and so they seceded. Another thing I would like to point out is that in every Southern state more than half of the southerners did not own any slaves.
5ti01qs 1 month ago
@5ti01qs So just because a document says something makes it right? This is an issue that should have been settled before the Constitution was drafted because slavery distorted our Democracy for generations. Also if you read my original comment you'd know that I am well aware that a minority of Southerners owned slaves. And Southerners weren't seceding because of the Constitution's stance on slavery, but that their economy would be in serious risk without slavery.
rockndude87 1 month ago
@5ti01qs Only 10% of whites owned slaves, incidentally 6% of free blacks were slave owners.
DukeofWellington91 1 month ago
@DukeofWellington91 ~ the emancipation proclamation freed slaves by executive order.
the south executed all black war prisoners fighting for the north, thus leading to the starvation and deaths of thousands of whites prisoners on both sides. the south was especially brutal to northern prisoners. the south's refusal to treat blacks as humanely as whites is just another example of the south's racist beliefs and reason for the civil war.
you confederate revisionists are at best liars.
tomitstube 1 month ago
@tomitstube what you fail to relise is that the South did not have much to give to the northern prisoners of war where as the north did have plenty to give to the Confederate POWs. Furthermore the Confederates lacked supplys such as food but still did their best to see that the yankee prisoners of war got food where as the north had plenty supplys and refused to give them to the Confederate Prisoners of War.
5ti01qs 1 month ago
@5ti01qs ~ you're just making shit up. before the south started executing all their black war prisoners, there was good treatment on both sides, prisoner swaps were made etc. then grant told the south to treat the blacks as good as the whites and the south summarily refused. that's how it fell apart, the racist south then took out their anger on white prisoners. they were starved and worked to death on purpose.
tomitstube 1 month ago
@tomitstube actually I am not just makeing $hit up. You fail to realise that while the South was an agriculture based economy, their main exports were cotton and tobacco so theirfore, the South did not have much food at the start of the war. Furthermore, while the south did grow cotton most of it was used to make coats for the Confederate officers instead of bed sheets, etc. To continue, during the war, the Union caused a masive blockade of all Southern ports and this caused the south to not
5ti01qs 1 month ago
@tomitstube ... to not be able to trade with Britian or France.
5ti01qs 1 month ago
@tomitstube Yes, and please point to the part of the Constitution that allows Executive Orders. I'm still waiting for anyone to help me out on this.
mmaier2112 2 weeks ago
@mmaier2112 ~ i see, so you disagree with an executive order to end slavery? because it's conveniently unconstitutional when you disagree with it? then you would have to admit the south seceded because of slavery, and i suppose you're part of the so-called "constitutionalists" who want to repeal the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that go much further in equal rights? that a problem too? and states rights? they only apply when you agree with them?
what a bunch of hypocrites.
tomitstube 2 weeks ago
@tomitstube I disagree with every single executive order enacted from the start. It's not a power the president was granted, therefore it is illegal. This is not hard for anyone with an elementary-grade school level of reading comprehension to understand, yet it constantly seems to elude "educated" adults somehow.
If you want a dictator, have the balls to say so.
mmaier2112 2 weeks ago
How could the south's secession be peaceful when the Confederate army invaded the NEUTRAL state of Kentucky (September 4, 1861)? And then there's the bombardment of Fort Sumter, of course....
KayBeeEee1983 5 months ago
How could the south's secession be democratic when almost 70% of the adult (20+) population in the 11 seceding states had no political power simply because of their gender/race? By definition, that is oligarchy, not democracy. Here's a rundown of each seceding state and the percentage of its adult population that was disenfranchised:
SC(78.6%), MS(76.2%), LA(72.4%), AL(71.6%), GA(71.0%), FL(69.2%), NC(67.8%), VA(66.5%), TN(60.7%), AR(59.4%), TX(58.5%)
Total: 68.5%
Source: US Census 1860
KayBeeEee1983 5 months ago
Well what do you expect, he was a republican.
What I find rather strange is that after Lincoln (a republican) united south states and north states together, the South Became the most right winged. Today, there is a very high rate of repubilcans in the south.
Anyone find this to be strange?
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk No. First of all Lincoln didnt unite the north and south, if anything he drew the line in the sand. He only united the sides in a geographical sense after he murdered over 620,000 innocent people. Secondly after the war, the south historically voted democratic until about the 1950s when they realized their views are more like the Republicans. They voted Democratic for so long due to the fact of Lincoln and the Republican puppet govts set up during reconstruction. The Republicans
RevBillyRayCollins 4 months ago
@gulbirk back then had very different political views than the Republicans today. The same goes for the Democrats during the time of Jackson, very much different than today. So no, its not strange.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 months ago
@gulbirk back then had very different political views than the Republicans today. The same goes for the Democrats during the time of Jackson, very much different than today. So no, its not strange.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 months ago
The garantee of democracy was the right of secession. Lincon ended democracy. The consent to be ruled is the foundation of the peoples contract with it's goverment. We lost the choice to give consecnt in Lincon's war. Murder of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and the branding of thousands as "disloyal citizens" has forever injured their decendants. Perhaps Lincon and Joseph Stalin have a great deal in comon.
randolphsonone 5 months ago
One minor problem.....Fort Sumpter. The moment YOU Southerners put the fire to the hole and opened fire on a Union Fort, YOU started the war! After that, all is fair in love and war.
BernieEOD 5 months ago
I would love to see your sources that claim that Hitler and Marx embraced Abraham Lincoln.
biologos101 5 months ago
If you ask me, they were both hypocrites (North and South).
TheMedievalMan 5 months ago
@TheMedievalMan I agree with you. But only one side mobilized an army of invasion and subjugation. For that, and that reason alone, Lincoln has a special place in the annals of the history of tyrants.
CauseAndEffectPost 5 months ago 8
@CauseAndEffectPost Do you truly think it would have been better to allow southerners to own slaves who they would often beat, rape, torture and murder? Do you think the enslavement and abuse of fellow human beings was just dandy? If so, what the fuck is WRONG with you?! I'm not denying Lincoln's faults, I'm just saying that slavery should not be tolerated. It's primitive and evil.
blackkakari 2 months ago
@blackkakari No one here thinks slavery was okay, we all condemn it. But keep in mind both sides are at fault when it comes to slavery, both the Union and the Confederacy had slaves, you cant just blame one side for it.
RevBillyRayCollins 2 months ago
In the phrase "to prevent their peaceful and democratic assertion of independence" please define 'democratic'. Any society that has slaves cannot possibly do *anything* 'democratically' by definition.
MrMathamagician 6 months ago
@MrMathamagician Slavery was without argument the most abominable of institutions, but by your assertion, the American Revolution would also be illegitimate and undemocratic. It's important to note that had the South been allowed to depart in peace, slavery as an institution would have self destructed rather quickly on its own. The institution simply could not have survived with a free North only a border away. One need only look to the Brazil example to see this economic law in action.
CauseAndEffectPost 5 months ago 2
@CauseAndEffectPost Excellent point. I think you correctly identify the dangers of making a sweeping generalization based on a narrow definition. In truth things are usually more nuanced and not black or white. This is the reasoning by which I disagree with you assertion that Lincoln was a Tyrant.
It's also important to note that if the US didn't revolt we 'probably' would have become independent anyway just like Canada and Australia. If you rewrite history it's easy to justify anything.
MrMathamagician 5 months ago
@MrMathamagician I actually agree with your point about Canada and Australia, and would actually further add that had the colonies NOT revolted (as you put it), slavery would have ended quite peacefully in 1833 when Britain ended it across the empire through compensated emancipation.
It's not a rewrite of history that I'm proposing. It's to say that when the South asserted independence, Lincoln had a choice. And he chose, like King George, to FORCE reunion by military force. Tyranny defined.
CauseAndEffectPost 5 months ago
@CauseAndEffectPost Yes, the Revolution was also illegitimate and undemocratic.
"had the South been allowed to depart in peace, slavery as an institution would have self destructed"
Based on their own declarations of causes for secession, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Mississippi thought that staying in the union put their slave system in greater danger than seceding did.
If the 7 deep south states had been allowed to secede, they would have bordered union slave states, not free states.
KayBeeEee1983 5 months ago
@MrMathamagician It was widely accepted in both the North and the South that slavery was in theory morally wrong and people generally believed that it would die out, the issue they had was how to do this without destroying the economy. The beliefs about slavery in the North and South were not actually that different. It was considered an unfortunate historical inheritance.
DukeofWellington91 1 month ago
even though its 2011 I am surprised this view is allowed.....Lincoln could be cruel, and the tools he used in war only underline that fact.
duesenbergmj 6 months ago
Southerns and Northerns will NEVER be able to get along . this is proved by our history. Let us alone, the celtic peoples of the south and you northerners can go on about your business.
pmcclaren1 6 months ago
Freed the slaves and saved the Union. God Bless you Abe.
TheyHearUsNow 6 months ago
@TheyHearUsNow Lincoln never freed the slaves and he destroyed the union in terms of a voluntary association of states by forcing the southern states to stay at gunpoint. The emancipation proclamation was only meant to free the slaves in the seceded states, not the slaves in the border states with the north. But still the federal army couldnt free the slaves in the south, they didnt have the power. Lincoln stated it was just a military measure.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Lincoln wasn't forcing the south to stay. He and the rest of the Republicans were delighted to see the south vacate their seats in congress. Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address that he wasn't going to use force against the south unless they fired first, which they did at Fort Sumter. Lincoln was enforcing the law when he invaded Virginia. If the southern states really thought that secession was constitutional, they would have taken their case to the Supreme Court.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 lincoln committed treason by invading Virginia.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Virginia committed treason by defending South Carolina and attacking the Union army at Manassas Junction. South Carolina committed treason by attacking Fort Sumter.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 SC and the other southern states werent committing treason because they acknowledged their own leaving of the union through secession. They left, they dont abide by the Const any longer. But Lincoln never acknowledged their leaving, he said they remained with the union, so going to war with SC which according to Abe was still in the union then Abe was committing treason for levying war against the states.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Attacking Fort Sumter was treason.
"They left, they dont abide by the Const any longer"
If they leave without going to the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of secession then they are revolting and choosing war, which is fine if neo-confederates admit that secession is unconstitutional and they were trying to start a revolutionary war, but most refuse to admit it. They claim secession is constitutional and the south was trying to leave in peace, which is a joke
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Well sure slavery in the southern states and some in the northern states was increasing but so was pressure from foriegn powers and production of synthetic fibers. The south was trying to leave in peace look at what Jeff Davis tried to do, and hell the Virginia Assembly did something similar. Lets put aside the constitutionality of secession and take a look. If part of a country whishes to leave because they see faults in the govt, why wouldnt you let them? Why would someone
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "The south was trying to leave in peace"
Why do you keep saying this? I explained why it was totally bogus.
"look at what Jeff Davis tried to do"
He tried to buy his way out of the Union, rather than use constitutional methods.
"If part of a country whishes to leave because they see faults in the govt, why wouldnt you let them?"
Because I might not see those faults in the government and see greater faults in secession. Secession might harm the general welfare of everyone.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I wouldnt call the ability to favor both parties and save countless lives as bogus.
Well what are the faults in secession then? How would it harm the general welfare? By not allowing the south to secede your hurting democracy, they voted to leave. I think you should try walking in the shoes of the secessionists, see what they wanted. I have nothing against the north, unlike yourself who hates the south, my problems are with the feds. They were nothing but tyrants.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Saying that the south was trying to leave peacefully is bogus.
Imagine the manifest destiny period if the states hadn't united, if there were 3 federations instead of 1. There would've been constant fighting with each other, with Mexico, and with the Native Americans.
I don't hate the south, I hate confederates. They're extremely selfish and superficial. They focus almost entirely on the present, very little on the past, and never think about the future.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 What possible 3 federations? Im not denying anything you said, but it was presidents like Mckinley, Roosevelt, and Wilson who invoked Lincolns name and wanted to conquer the planet. Teddy being a person I highly respect but a jerk on foreign policy. George W Bush justified some of his questionable actions by saying great presidents like Lincoln and FDR did it.
I think we should go back to how the country was run in the past. More power to the states and a controlled federal
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins I randomly said 3.
FDR and Wilson wanted to "conquer the planet"? Are you retarded?
I agree that we shouldn't be going to war so eagerly.
Is it just a coincidence that all of those presidents you named were from Virginia?
"It was a last option"
Stop saying that. You know it's not true. They only tried ONE other option before firing on Sumter.
"they had no choice if SC wanted to do what they felt was right"
They chose war without even bothering to go to the Supreme Court.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Sumter was a last option, as you said before the CSA did try to buy their way out of the union.
No I chose those 5 presidents because they believed in small government and states rights, its just a plus that their all from Virginia.
Did the colonists go to the courts when secededing from England?
The war did have good intentions, for the average soldier fighting and the southern cause.
I never said the states should have more power, I said we should take the power
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins The colonists knew that they were committing treason when they declared independence from the UK. They knew what they were doing was technically illegal. Neo-Confederates think what the southern states did was perfectly legal and constitutional.
The colonists didn't go to court, but they went to the king. Look up the Olive Branch Petition. The south went to Lincoln, but the president is not king.
The primary southern cause was slavery. Deny it all you want, but that's a fact.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Bullshit the primary cause was slavery. If that was the case why didnt Jefferson Davis also mention it as a reason for secession in his inagural address. If slavery was the cause why didnt the Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, or Arkansas legislatures say slavery was their reason for leaving the union.
Well show me a case where during the "invasions" a confederate was arrested and placed on trial for seceding. If there was no point in debating secession after Sumter then
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Who cares why Davis didn't mention it? He's one man. His Vice President gave a whole speech about slavery being the "cornerstone" of the confederacy.
Only 1/3 of VA's, TN's, AR's, and NC's legislatures wanted secession to preserve slavery, that's why the didn't secede right away. But after Sumter, another 1/3 seceded because of states' rights.
Andrew Johnson pardoned all the confederate leaders you stupid asshole. Read a fucking history book you ignorant bastard.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Davis is the god damned president, what do you mean he doesnt matter?
Those states revoted for secession and not once was slavery the primary reason.
You said the norths invasion of the south was meant to arrest the confederate leaders and place them on trial for seceding, not treason, but secession. Find me a case then where the confederates were arrested AND placed on TRIAL for SECESSION. Thats what you said.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins It means that Davis was one man, and he never denied that the south's secession was about slavery? Davis was smart. He knew that if the British and French thought secession was about slavery, there's no way they would intervene on the side of the CSA. Every other politician, and a lot of the states themselves, were complete morons
I always said the invasion was to arrest southerners for treason and that secession was illegitimate. Show me where I said secession was a crime
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "I certainly dont see the union folks rushing to see that the confederates are placed on the stand for somehow violating the const by seceding."
That's what the southern "invasions" were. They were police actions to arrest the leaders of the Confederacy. You have to arrest a person before you can put them on trial.
After Sumter there was no point for the supreme court, or anyone else, to debate secession. Sumter was a crime because South Carolina hadn't legally seceded
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 yet.
I was talking about the north not bringing up charges against the south over their secession. You replied thats what the invasions were about, to capture and arrest the confederate leaders and have them put on trial for violating the const by seceding.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins You're a fuckin dumbass.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 It's not my fault that's what you said.
You show your true colors there don't you boy. An immature arrogant yankee who can't accept opposing view points once he's been beat.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins It's your fault that you have no reading comprehension. You can't read 2 sentences without forgetting what the first sentence was about. You are a complete and utter moron.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 When I was talking about why didnt the north take the south to court then and you replied thats what the invasions of the south were about, it clearly means, according to you, the union army invaded the south to arrest the confederate leaders and have them put on trial for seceding. So if thats the case, then you should have no problem finding me a case where a confederate leader was arrested and put on trial for seceding. These arent my views, because I know its wrong, but you
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Jefferson Davis was charged with treason you stupid bastard.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 First of all, your previous statement was that the invasion of the south was to capture arrest and hold a trial for confederate leaders over SECESSION NOT TREASON. Secondly, to prove you still havent answered my question, Davis was charged with treason, but not once was he ever actually tried in a court of law over the matter. Find me a case where a CSA leader was arrested and put on trial for secession, that is what you said the whole pupose of the southern invasion was.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevBillyRayCollins You're a fucking moron.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "your previous statement was that the invasion of the south was to capture arrest and hold a trial for confederate leaders over SECESSION NOT TREASON"
You're a total moron. I always said treason. I have never said secession. If you think so, it's because you can't read
"to prove you still havent answered my question, Davis was charged with treason, but not once was he ever actually tried in a court of law over the matter."
Nixon never got tried either, BECAUSE HE WAS PARDONED
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Good god, actually read what you said. I was talking about the north, using your BS argument, should have put the confederates on trial for illegally seceding. You then responded and said thats what the southern invasions were about, arresting the confederate leaders and having them placed on trial. Just after I was discussing SECESSION you said thats what they should be arrested and tried for. That conversation wasnt over treason, but secession and then thats what you said to me.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins I said "Sumter was a crime because South Carolina hadn't legally seceded yet."
Now, if I said "hadn't LEGALLY seceded" shouldn't that tell you that I'm not talking about secession being a crime? Haven't I repeatedly said that TREASON was the south's crime? Haven't I repeatedly said that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGITIMATE, not necessarily ILLEGAL? This is what I mean when I say you can't read 2 sentences without forgetting what the first sentence was about.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 No, Im sure thats what you meant to say but thats not what you said to me, assuming by mistake. You just cant admit you made that little mistake. If Im talking about secession and you immediately respond by saying thats what the union was trying to arrest the confederate leaders for, without mentioning treason, what am I supposed to think? Im sure it was a mistake on your part, but a mistake doesnt become a problem until you refuse to correct it. You know who said that?
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Of course you're going to say I made a mistake because the alternative would be to admit to yourself that you're a complete moron. My only mistake was thinking you had a working brain cell.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Maybe you didnt mean to say that, but you still said it. But you arent admitting you said it because you know Im right and your wrong. So since you havent taken that comment back, find me a case where a confederate leader was arrested and tries for secession. Keep in mind secession isnt treason.
Who's talking about Nixon, he wasnt a confederate leader.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "Who's talking about Nixon, he wasnt a confederate leader."
You can't be serious. You really are dumb as a rock.
"find me a case where a confederate leader was arrested and tries for secession."
ANDREW JOHNSON PARDONED THEM ALL. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Were we not talking about arresting and holding trial for confederate leaders? I dont see Nixon being related to the subject at hand.
Well you cant find me a case then. You proved yourself wrong, thats not a suprise. Dont bother bringing it up if you cant prove it, your wasting both of our time. Johnson didnt pardon them all, Grant pardoned more. Jeff Davis was never officially pardoned, released from jail yes, but never pardoned. They could have tried him for secession.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "I dont see Nixon being related to the subject at hand."
Of course you don't, because you're an idiot and you don't grasp the concept of analogy.
"They could have tried him for secession."
So dumb. So fucking dumb.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I do grasp the concept that your ignoring the topic at hand.
Im sorry, I meant to say treason, that was indeed my fault. But they could have tried him for his help in creating the plot to secede supposedly unconstitutionally. Of course they didnt. Proving you wrong that it was not their intention.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Are you aware that Lincoln was assassinated in 1865? Assassinated means killed. Lincoln was not the president when Davis and the other confederate leaders were arrested. Grant pardoned the confederate leaders, not Johnson. Grant's administration is notorious for being the most corrupt presidential administration in american history.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 So are you saying because Abe was killed, the whole reason for the war, according to you, meaning arresting the confederate leaders and holding trial for treason, was just thrown out the window? Jefferson Davis wasnt ever pardoned, he could have been put on trial, Robert E Lee and James Longstreet, the latter working for Pres Grant, went without pardons for awile. Its also hard to tell, there were pardons sent out from Johnson and Grant pardoning some confederates while others
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "because Abe was killed...arresting the confederate leaders and holding trial for treason, was just thrown out the window?"
More or less. Johnson was a southerner. Grant's administration was corrupt. Lincoln strongly advocated reconciliation with the southern people, but I don't know if he ever specifically talked about the politicians. I'm sure, though I don't know, that he didn't want to get the southern generals in trouble because they fought for duty, not secession.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 That may indeed be the case, but if they really wanted to conict them of treason they had plenty of opportunities. Andrew Johnson said during the war that he wanted to hang all of the confederate leaders but once he became president that feeling obviously changed.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Johnson was a filthy lying power-hungry rat. He was a Senator, but didn't resign his position when Tennessee seceded. If he were a Rep, that would be a bit more understandable because he could say that his district was unionist so he still represented them. Johnson represented the Tennessee legislature, which voted to secede, so his duty was to resign, but he couldn't give up his power in the Senate. I've always thought that Johnson had something to do with Lincoln's death
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 And a drunk, dont forget that. It could be a conspiracy, but I dont think it was.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 were exempt. But even with some Confederate leaders never being pardoned and some being pardoned many years after the war, not a single person was charged with treason. The union had the ability to charge many men but never did so.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 are the one who said this, thus you should be able to back it up with documented evidence.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 government, a govt that didnt go to war so carelessly, and thats not just Abe. Im not worried about the future, so long as we can make how the govt was run in the past, like during Jeffersons, Washingtons, Tylers, Madisons, and Monroes admin, how its run today.
It was a last option, they had no choice if SC wanted to do what they felt was right. War is war, its bloody, its how it will always be. Cant change that. Many wars are pointless, this war had good intentions.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "this war had good intentions"
How do you sleep at night? You and other confederates must compartmentalize everything.
In the federal system, the national government is supposed to have more power than the states (Article VI, Clause 2). The "check" on the national government is the Constitution and the Supreme Court. If the states have more power than the national government, it's a Confederation.
The Federalists wanted a strong national government, not an all-powerful one.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 from the feds that they stole from the states. Like the feds war on drugs, obamacare, no child left behind etc. Yes the federalists believed in a strong national govt, with more power with the feds and less power with the states.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 deny them the right to leave when that portion of the country democratically voted to do so? Why would someone turn down a peaceful solution favoring both parties? Why would someone provoke the other side into firing first knowing a war will soon follow? Why would a president do that? Why would you destroy federalism, in favor of a strong federal government? Why would you support tyranny? Why not give them what they want in order to prevent bloodshed?
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins It's your opinion that the solution favors both parties. Lincoln would argue that the solution favors neither party
How did Lincoln provoke the south to fire on Fort Sumter? By sending a supply ship?
Federalism IS having a strong federal government. Jesus, every comment shows your ignorance of government and the Constitution
"Why not give them what they want in order to prevent bloodshed?"
Thanks for finally admitting that the CSA was indeed holding the country hostage LMAO
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Sure, SC said dont resupply the fort or it will be fired upon. Lincoln resupplied the fort and SC wasnt bluffing. Lincoln said it himself that he provoked SC into firing. Of course SC was going to fight if need be, they told Abe to pack up and get out or else. I wouldnt call the rest of the country hostages however because they had no role in the conflict at the time. SC wanted the federals to leave the fort, they could care less about the rest of the country. And my bloodsheld
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "SC said dont resupply the fort or it will be fired upon. Lincoln resupplied the fort and SC wasnt bluffing."
Yeah, that sounds very rational and peaceful. South Carolina was trying to kill the men inside the fort by starving them to death.
"they told Abe to pack up and get out or else."
So you have no problem with strongarm tactics. Do you think you're helping the confederates look better? You're just describing how unreasonable and violent they were.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 remark was for the future war Between the States, not the Ft Sumter fiasco. Not a single person died during the bombardment, except for I think 2 union soldiers in one of their own cannon malfunctions or something like that, so no one was killed during the actual firing on the fort.
Federalism is best defined as: a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states).
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "And my bloodsheld remark was for the future war Between the States, not the Ft Sumter fiasco."
Yes, Sumter was treason, but not murder. Bull Run, though, was treason and mass murder.
Federalism is divided/shared sovereignty. Confederation is when ALL sovereignty is with the states.
The Federalists were never in favor of an all-powerful central government. That's just a myth that your confederate fathers told you to scare you.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I think we should respectively agree to disagree on the issue of who was committing treason, actually we should agree to disagree on many issues. I'll give you this: I enjoy your strong viewed opinions and I appluad you for standing up for them. However I may not agree with them.
Well yeah thats what federalsim and a confederation is, whats your point? Today we follow the US Const and that created a federalism style of govt. Thus we must follow federalism, in my opinion to its
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins I have absolutely no respect for you whatsoever.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Its because you cant handle the truth. You get very personal in these arguments, you shouldnt let your emotions control you.
I never said FDR wanted to conquer the planet, that was referring to George W Bush and some of his domestic policies justifying them that FDR did it. I said Mckinley, [Teddy] Roosevelt, and Wilson. But yes they did want to conquer the planet. Look at our actions in the Spanish American War, the Panama Canal, the supposed League of Nations, and WW1.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins I have contempt for you because you keep saying stupid things like the bombardment of Sumter was "a last option, they had no choice if SC wanted to do what they felt was right" even after I repeatedly mention that they should have gone to the Supreme Court. You say they tried to secede peacefully when they only tried ONE half-assed, ill-conceived peaceful method. And there's another example of your idiocy: "Did the colonists go to the courts when secededing from England?"
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Well I certainly dont see the union folks rushing to see that the confederates are placed on the stand for somehow violating the const by seceding. I never read any accounts in 1860-61 where the Union was trying to have a supreme court case with the confederates trying to deny the right of secession. Ive never read any accounts where the Supreme Court voiced its opinion and said this issue should be decided through the courts not by just leaving and war.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "I certainly dont see the union folks rushing to see that the confederates are placed on the stand for somehow violating the const by seceding."
That's what the southern "invasions" were. They were police actions to arrest the leaders of the Confederacy. You have to arrest a person before you can put them on trial.
After Sumter there was no point for the supreme court, or anyone else, to debate secession. Sumter was a crime because South Carolina hadn't legally seceded yet.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 why according to you was the union invading the south to force them to stay in the union? It sounds like they want the debate to be a little more physical. If the debate is over then there would be no point in going to war with the south to prove yourself right. They would have just let the south go, thats what would happen if the debate was over.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevBillyRayCollins "why according to you was the union invading the south to force them to stay in the union?"
I said the union invaded the south to arrest the southern leaders and put them on trial for treason.
"If the debate is over then there would be no point in going to war with the south to prove yourself right. They would have just let the south go, thats what would happen if the debate was over."
You're so fucking stupid it's starting to make me laugh inside. See my previous answer.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 fullest, and that means bringing that unconstitutional power the feds have back to the states. The CSA no longer exists, only the USA. So I support what the US Const says. However my personal views lie with the CSA during this conflict. But I live in the 21 century, where the US Const is our govt. So that means federalism too.
I hope your joking about the federalists right? And you call me crazy....
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 You must be mistaken with the federalists, who originally championed the idea of federalism, and then went on to support a stronger national government and less sovereignty among the states, people like Alexander Hamilton.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@TheyHearUsNow God bless Lincoln? That's a joke right? You do realize he wanted to send all slaves to Liberia correct? Do you also realize that he offered the south a constitutional guarantee to protect their slavery if they stayed in the union? Grow up.
mugelerm 6 months ago
when will brave men stop waiting for the consent of the brainwashed majority? when will the forgotten spirit of freedom, once again fill the hearts of americans? why are we letting our liberty slip farther and farther out of our grasp? we must remind our fellow americans of the value of personal freedom from tyrant governments.. combat the lies that have been fed to the people for so long...wake the blind from their deep sleep, if they dont want to see, to hell with them..we cant afford to wait
longfootbuddy 6 months ago 2
@longfootbuddy What lies? You mean the lie that slavery had nothing to do with the south's secession? The lie that the war was about taxes? The lie that the south tried to secede peacefully? The lie that slavery was dying in the south? The lie that the civil war was a carbon copy of the American Revolution? Those lies?
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Slavery had absolutely nothing to do with VA NC AK or TNs secession. Look at what both Lincoln and Davis talk about in their first inagural addresses about tarrifs/taxes/imposts/free trade. The south did try to pay for the southern half of the national debt and for federal property but were turned down by Abe. Slavery was begginning to die from pressure from foreign powers and the rise of synthetic fiber. Those 2 wars are very similar, both fighting for their independence.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "Slavery was begginning to die from pressure from foreign powers and the rise of synthetic fiber."
Between 1850 and 1860, in the 11 states which would become the CSA, the slave population grew at a faster rate than the free population.
"Those 2 wars are very similar, both fighting for their independence."
They are similar only on the most superficial level and only to people who are ignorant of US history.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 lincoln attacked the south because they were trying to leave the tyrant union.. theyve brainwashed you all into thinking it was to free blacks
longfootbuddy 6 months ago
@longfootbuddy Have you read any of my comments?
What is wrong with you confederates? South Carolina fired on Sumter before ANY military action was taken by the Union. It seems like you're all in denial. The south controlled the Union for most of the time before the civil war. The supreme court was always majority southern. The president was southern 2/3 of the time, and almost every northern president was sympathetic to slavery. If the Union was tyrannical it's because the south was tyrannical.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 im not going to argue with a brainwashed turd like yourself.. you hold to a history of lies, and are unable to decifer freedom from tyranny
longfootbuddy 6 months ago
@longfootbuddy You're not going to argue because you know that I'm not brainwashed and will counter every idiotic thing you say. Name one lie that I've said.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee, "I said "You condemned Lincoln for being gay, not for committing adultery." You replied with "I condemn him for both!"
""a racist," DID I SAY THAT?"
Sorry but a racist has NOTHING to do with being gay! race concerns color, not gender preference and sex. And yet again you lose! You're on a roll!
Michael-Deo us Vindices
360000mike 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@360000mike "Sorry but a racist has NOTHING to do with being gay! race concerns color, not gender preference and sex."
Are you retarded, or are you intentionally acting like a moron?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee, "And you've done nothing to help it..."
REALLY? I'm here ain't I?
"..you have no right to criticize anyone or anything about this country when you don't even VOTE"
I have just as many rights as you do. And you want me to lose those too! That's part of my problem against Lincoln and liberals.
"..for God's sake!" What's god got to do with it? You were the one vilifying me over god! Hypocrite again on you..
Michael-Deo us Vindices
360000mike 7 months ago
@360000mike "REALLY? I'm here ain't I?"
And all you do is criticize while your fat ass stays on the couch in your basement.
"I have just as many rights as you do."
And what gives you those rights? The Constitution, which you constantly spit on.
"you want me to lose those too!"
You're willingly flushing them down the toilet.
"for God's sake!" What's god got to do with it? You were the one vilifying me over god! Hypocrite again on you"
I'm starting to think you really are slightly illiterate.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee, "If you can't handle the truth, then stop responding to me."
Let's let the posts decide. Do you actually think I am personally debating and responding to you? Either defending myself or attacking you? Of course I can't win an Internet debate head to head, but let's let the reader decide. I want them to see your posts.
Michael-Deo us Vindices
360000mike 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee, "Now I see, now you think you are better than I am, that's it!" "Absolutely. You're one of the worst types of human being. The only thing that would make you worse would be if you were a serial killer." That's what I like to hear. That's all this has turned into a "peeing" contest for'ya, seeing how bad you can trash someone. It was no different in Lincoln's time, with his thugs. You just a good dramatization of the modern day liberal. From here, I'll simply let the readers decide.
360000mike 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@360000mike "From here, I'll simply let the readers decide."
Thank you for proving me right when I said that when you wrote "You've completely lost your arguments" that was just your way of saying "I give up."
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee, "The great southern generals, Lee, Longstreet, who survived the war reentered society and functioned as human beings with integrity. Those weren't your people. Your people were Forrest the KKK founder and Edmund Ruffin."
There you go telling me about my own people again! You don't know doodle about my people, Lee or any of them. If you did, you would know what he said about things after the war. Things that was done to him as well. Nor do you know about Forest and the KKK.
Michael
360000mike 7 months ago
@360000mike "There you go telling me about my own people again! You don't know doodle about my people, Lee or any of them. If you did, you would know what he said about things after the war. Things that was done to him as well. Nor do you know about Forest and the KKK."
I'm not talking about what they SAID or THOUGHT. I'm talking about the way they FUNCTIONED IN SOCIETY. They didn't just give up on their people like you obviously have.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee, "You're a homophobe," DID I SAY THAT?
"a racist," DID I SAY THAT? "a religious bigot," DID I SAY THAT? You started the religious slurs. I never mentioned religion until you did. " you're opposed to democracy and progress,"
And I said YOU don't know what DEMOCRACY is! And you don't! But you think you do. "you favor violent revolution." DID I SAY THAT? Why, you tell me things about myself I did not know!
Gee you're so smart, just like typical liberal.
Michael-Deo us Vindices
360000mike 7 months ago
@360000mike "You're a homophobe," DID I SAY THAT?"
Yes
I said "You condemned Lincoln for being gay, not for committing adultery."
You replied with "I condemn him for both!"
""a racist," DID I SAY THAT?"
Yes. You tried to diffuse (not defuse, look it up) blame for slavery. If you defend the CSA without also condemning slavery, then you are a racist, intrinsically. It's like Germans who deny the holocaust. The southern politicians seceded because of slavery. That is a clear FACT.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@360000mike ""a religious bigot," DID I SAY THAT?"
Yes. You accused me of not believing in God because I don't believe your bible.
"I said YOU don't know what DEMOCRACY is!"
No, you didn't say that, you just said democracy is bad and not what the founding fathers intended. Democracy is the people having political power. You seem to think democracy means "majority rule".
""you favor violent revolution." DID I SAY THAT?"
Yes. You ridicule democracy and you support war to settle secession.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee, "Like you said, one needs only to look at your posts to see your character. You're a homophobe, a racist, a religious bigot, you're opposed to democracy and progress, you favor violent revolution.
And now you are labeling me! Where does your insults end? Where does your diatribe end? Do you have any integrity and morals at all? Undoubtedly not since you claim to be a liberal and only believe in the revisionist history of the moment. And this is what your kind has done to the country!
360000mike 7 months ago
@360000mike "You're a homophobe, a racist, a religious bigot, you're opposed to democracy and progress, you favor violent revolution.
And now you are labeling me! Where does your insults end? Where does your diatribe end?"
If you can't handle the truth, then stop responding to me. It's not like I'm insulting your mother or making up other groundless insults (like you calling my beliefs "nothing of any substance" and saying I "don't believe in God" even though you know nothing about my beliefs.)
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago