Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war. And Lincoln did NOT have the approval of Congress when he declared war on the CSA. Also, slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, so the Emancipation Proclamation actually amounted to a federal seizure of private property.
Here are the facts: As the War began, Lincoln's sole issue was restoration of the Union for purposes of restoring lost tax revenues, not ending slavery. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves, inherited by his wife, whereas Union General Grant did not free his slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South.
@dburt1 I am proud of the struggle of our people for independence in 1861--1865, which was truly heroic and produced leaders that won the admiration of the world. I do not wish to reinstate slavery though I would like to restore the U.S. Constitution if possible. What I want is for my people's unique and admirable culture to flourish and decide its own future. This is a positive mission in tune with a changing world. If we don't accomplish that goal the future will be sad indeed. DEO VINDICE!
@AmericanMilitiamen Why are you proud of a slaveowner oligarchy that pushed the South into secession and war to protect and preserve slavery so that they could enjoy their ever increasing aristocracy? We should all find the cemetaries of these fire-eaters and piss on their graves. The only liberty these guys cared about was theirs, their liberty to ride around all day in buggies and smoke cigars while the fruits of someone elses labors are taken at gunpoint. Proud of that?
@dburt1 Thomas Jefferson expressed his opinion on the Missouri Compromise in a letter to John Holms dated April 22, 1820. Jefferson writes that the Missouri question, "like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union." April 13, 1820, Jefferson wrote that the "Missouri question aroused and filled me with alarm...I have been among the most sanguine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much."
@dburt1 Lincoln supported the Illinois constitutional change in the 1840s that prohibited the immigration of black people into the state of Illinois. His career-long position on the race issue was colonization. He advocated sending every last black person in America back to Haiti, Central America, Africa . To Congress in 1862: "I cannot make it any better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." Like you said, that's not what we learned in the history books in school!
@dburt1 The story of Lincoln and racial equality is there for anyone who wants to read it. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, he said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races, and I have never said anything to the contrary." He went on in the same speech in Ottawa, Ill., in 1858 to say that he was not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office and not to intermarry with white people.
@AmericanMilitiamen Your posts are little more than a repeat of the drivel found in apologists handbooks. They are nothing but snipets of out of context material, deceptions, and disingenuous half-truths. I'm not surprised that you have decided to pass on "educating" me of the tariff issue in 1860. What's the problem? No mind of your own?
@dburt1 Following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, 1860, U.S. Major Anderson surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter. Major Anderson refused to surrender. After 34 hours of shelling, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement.
@AmericanMilitiamen Don't try to dismiss this as not being an act of war by the confederates just because nobody was directly killed in the shelling. The confederacy was stillborn, with only half of the slave states joining. Without Virginia and Tenn it was doomed. Reducing Sumter was a ploy to draw blood to force the remainder of slave states to disunion. Try reading the speeches of the secession commissioners if you insist on parroting that it all had nothing to do with slavery.
@dburt1 Again, if a State joins the Union of its own free will it has the right to leave without the permission of the Supreme court. Why did the North want to keep the South in the Union? Because they made so much money from taxes and tariffs! Lincoln himself referred to the South as the "cash cow". Why force someone to stay married if they want a divorce? You are a typical might is right Yankee. I would be thrilled if we would secede today and let you people wallow in your corrupt government!
@AmericanMilitiamen When the original states ratified the Constitution they agreed to abide by its terms, and the Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter. As in contracts, one party cannot simply leave when it doesn't like something, like the outcome of an election. The South had controlled the federal government for almost all of its history till then, and now they were pissed because a man was elected president who wasn't even on their ballots. They had lost control..time to run.
@AmericanMilitiamen ...and as for tariffs...you shouldn't even go there in your current state of ignorance. You don't know squat about them, and what you think you know is only the lies you've been misled with from your "deo vindice" books.
@dburt1 Jefferson's draft of the Declaration proclaims the sovereignty of the new States: " finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, and that as free and independent states they shall hereafter have the power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do". The United States, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their government!
@AmericanMilitiamen Did you happen to notice that all the things you point out that Jefferson used to describe independent states were then PROHIBITED to the states in the US Constitution? So....by your own logic, the sovereignty of the states was ceded to the national government when they ratified the Constitution. Actually, if you'll read federalist Paper #39, you'll see Madison describe it as a hybrid of federal and national powers.
@dburt1 Again the South fought the war for essentially the same reason that the American colonies fought the Revolutionary War, TAXES! After the enactment of what was called the "Tariff of Abomination" in 1828, promoted by Henry Clay, the tax on imports ranged between 20-30%. It rose further in March 1861 when Lincoln, signed the Morrill Tariff into law. This tax was far more onerous than the one forced on the American colonies by Britain in the 18th century. Please read some real history books!
@AmericanMilitiamen PLEASE, I beg of you. Don't write about tariffs. They are my specialty. Your regurgitating of the crap you think you know about them is going to make me want to puke. Hint: The "tariff of abomination" was a political ploy by Calhoun and his buddies to get Jackson elected over Adams. It has NOTHING to do with any of the tariff issues of 1860. Another hint: Lincoln did not sign the 1861 Morrill Tariff into law. It was already law when he took office.
@dburt1 Congress was adjourned at the time Lincoln declared war on the CSA! Ignoring his constitutional duty to call this legislative branch of government back in session during a time of emergency, Lincoln assumed dictatorial powers and did things, like declaring a war and raising an army, that only Congress is supposed to do. He shut down more than 400 newspapers that disagreed with his war policy. He ordered his military officers to lock up thousands of political opponents! Your hero Lincoln!
@AmericanMilitiamen Lincoln did have the Constitutional power to call up troops while Congress was out. It was addressed by the SCOTUS and you are simply wrong again. he did not shut down 400 newspapers and imprison thousands of political opponents. Sheesh......;do you believe EVERYTHING you read. Get the message....you are being lied to by the authors of the materials you are reading. I have always thought that would piss people off, but curiously, it doesn't bother neo-confederates.
@dburt1 Here are the facts: As the war began, the sole issue was restoration of the Union -- not ending slavery. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves, inherited by his wife's estate, prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant's wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South. Oops!
@AmericanMilitiamen As the war began, the issue was preserving the Union, not ending slavery. But that is not the same as saying the war had nothing to do with slavery, as you have. Saving the Union was made necessary by the South's secession, which was done to preserve slavery. Without the issue of slavery, there's no rebellion, and no war. Your claim of secession to escape being plundered by the North is nothing but "lost cause" fantasy, invented to make the rebellion appear honorable.
@dburt1 There was NO attempt by either side in the War Between the States to resort to federal courts or international arbitrators for a decision on the legality of secession. As settled as secession may be as a political or historical issue to some, it has never been settled as a legal one. There have been no textual changes to the Constitution which explicitly prohibit secession. The recent revival of secession talk in Texas and other States shows people yearn for the days of freedom again!
@AmericanMilitiamen Of course there was no case brought.... seven states instead chose rebellion and seized federal properties. They chose trial by fire. They started a war. If you think unilateral secession has never been settled as a legal issue, I suggest you look at Texas v White, 1869.
@dburt1 The CSA did not rebel, they legally seceded and formed their own country. Those properties that lay within the CSA now belonged to them and not the USA. I am sure King George felt the same as you when the American colonies "rebelled against his authority". You really do hate liberty and individual freedom. To you the State is all powerful and anyone who disagrees with you and the State needs to be brought into submission by military force. Yet I bet you are for the Arab Freedom Movement.
@AmericanMilitiamen "You really do hate liberty and individual freedom. To you the State is all powerful and anyone who disagrees with you and the State needs to be brought into submission by military force. Yet I bet you are for the Arab Freedom Movement."
So, when you realize you are bankrupt for knowledge, you invent crap to throw. Its ironic that you think opponents of the confederacy dedicated to slavery must hate liberty and individual freedom. That's funny,,,and pretty idiotic.
@dburt1 In Texas v. White the court's opinion ruling that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, a former cabinet member under Abraham Lincoln. Chase articulated the "Slave Power conspiracy" thesis well before Lincoln. Author Harold M. Hyman argues that in two cases - Re Turner (1867) and Texas v. White (1869) - Chase combined his abolitionist philosophy with an activist jurisprudence to deliver prejudiced verdicts.
@AmericanMilitiamen First you claim it was never addressed in court, now you simply don't like the outcome because of the Chief Justice. Maybe if a slaveholder Chief Justice like Taney had still been alive you would have your respect for the court restored.
@dburt1 I said the issue of Secession was never presented in Court BEFORE the War moron. And yes, maybe the verdicts from the Chase court would have been more balanced if they had some former slaveholders like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington seated on the bench with this bigoted lunatic! Chase had such a hatred for the South, like you have, that there was no way a fair verdict was ever going to be rendered. You are so blinded by hate for the South that you cannot form a cohesive thought.
@AmericanMilitiamen Before the war? Nope, wrong again. Here is what you said: "As settled as secession may be as a political or historical issue to some, it has never been settled as a legal one. There have been no textual changes to the Constitution which explicitly prohibit secession. The recent revival of secession talk in Texas and other States shows people yearn for the days of freedom again!" This was the post I was answering with Texas v White. You can't even understand...you.
@dburt1 I was referring to Texas today, not the Texas v White case. Hence, "The recent revival of secession talk in Texas and other States shows people yearn for the days of freedom again!" Got It?
@dburt1 You continue to say the Supreme Court sided with Lincoln on going to war without the permission of Congress. Source: "The Lawmen: United States Marshals and their Deputies, 1789–1989". This historical study gives a detailed account of an arrest warrant, signed by President Abraham Lincoln for Chief Justice Taney. US Marshal Laman recalls that, "Lincoln gave the warrant to him, instructing him to arrest Taney on sight". Laman never served the warrant because he knew it was illegal.
@dburt1 Charles W. Smith, a biographer of Taney (1973), gives this account of the scope of the arrests of civilians: Without the sanction of law the federal government arrested men by the thousands and confined them in military prisons. The number of such executive arrests was certainly over 13,000, and it has been estimated to have been as high as 38,000 (Columbia Law Review, XXI, 527–28, 1921). These are proven facts that cannot be swept under the rug by Lincoln cult followers like you.
@dburt1 Lincoln The Dictator: When Lincoln illegally suspended habeas corpus, John Merryman was arrested for insurrectionary activities. Merryman petitioned for a habeas corpus writ, which Chief Justice Taney granted. The commanding officer at Fort McHenry refused to release Merryman, citing Lincoln's edict. With the army loyal to Lincoln, Taney couldn't enforce his order and railed against the president while Merryman was in jail for seven more weeks. After being freed, he was never tried!
@dburt1 I am totally confused. You admit that Lincoln illegally invaded the CSA to preserve the Union and not to end slavery. That is because slavery was not illegal in 1860 you knuckle head! Got it! You need to read some real history instead of the public school revisionist pap that you keep citing. For some reason you choose to ignore all the facts and keep harping on slavery as the cause for the War. If slavery was not illegal why would Lincoln invade the CSA? What were his motives?
@AmericanMilitiamen Grow up and don't put words in my mouth. I did not say Lincoln "illegally invaded" the South. And if you care to look back, you will see that you have been waging a straw man argument against some idea that the Union started out fighting the war to end slavery. No one here has ever claimed that. However, if you are capable of understanding compound thoughts, slavery was the cause of the war. It was the cause of the rebellion. Secessionists admitted it...you can't.
@dburt1 Since you admit that slavery was not the issue that started the war, and slavery was legal at that time how was slavery a concern? People in the North including your beloved General Grant owned slaves all throughout the War. So get off your phony indignant moral high horse about slavery. No one alive today condones slavery, but in every century but this one people have been slave holders, and in Africa they still practice slavery even to this day. Focus on the issue - States Rights!
@dburt1 If slavery was legal in the USA and later in the CSA from 1776 until 1865 how could Lincoln possibly attack the South in 1861 for seceding if slavery were the issue as you claim. Slavery was practiced in both the North and the South and could only be ended by law, not at the point of a bayonet. You are a Lincoln worshiper as are most people today because of the revisionist history taught in our dismal public schools. Lincoln was an American Caesar who invaded the CSA without legal cause!
@dburt1 Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war. Got it meathead! And Lincoln did NOT have the approval of Congress when he declared war on the CSA. Quit drinking the Yankee public school kool-aid and read some real history will you.
@dburt1 U. S. tariff revenues fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies.
@AmericanMilitiamen god...so much plagiarism. Can't you write anything of your own? This story of the South paying 87% of revenues from tariffs is soooo old and boring. Why don't you tell where this 87% was collected on imports in 1860. Was it New Orleans? Charleston? Mobile? Maybe Houston. Maybe St Louis or Nashville. Please, tell me. I can't wait.
And while you're at it, please tell what kinds of expenditures were made on "the North" too.
@dburt1 Why don't you tell us exactly what gave your hero, Lincoln, the right to invade the Confederate States of America, a sovereign nation, since slavery was not illegal at the time.
@dburt1 You keep screaming "Plagiarism!" every time I cite facts. Where are you getting all your "original thoughts"? Apparently out of your ass! You discredit all sources I have cited as irrelevant. Obviously your sources are 8th grade drivel written about your hero Lincoln by revisionist historians. Again, since slavery was not illegal at the time Lincoln invaded the South and you say the War was not over States Rights or taxes, please be so kind and tell us all why Lincoln invaded the CSA!
In the 1860 election, Lincoln campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Lincoln further endorsed the Morrill Tariff and its concepts in his first inaugural speech and signed the Act into law a few days after taking office in March of 1861. Southern protests had been of no avail. Now the South was inflamed with righteous indignation, and Southern leaders began to call for Secession. Got It?
@AmericanMilitiamen Not much time for your nonsense tonight. Lincoln did not campaign for the 1860 tariff bill. He was not even the republican candidate when the bill was passed in the House. As I already told you, he DID NOT sign the bill into law. Buchanan did. It was already law when Lincoln took office. Before the bill was passed in the Senate, all of the deep South had already seceded. Had they stayed, they had the numbers to defeat the bill in the Senate. Your timeline is fucked.
@dburt1 Abraham Lincoln's record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill helped him to secure support in the important electoral college states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.Two additional tariffs sponsored by Morrill, each one higher, were passed during Abraham Lincoln's administration. Passage was possible because Southerners had left Congress after their states declared their secession.
@AmericanMilitiamen As further evidence that the tariff had nothing to do with secession, when the bill was passed in the Senate and became law, it caused none of the remaining slave states to secede. You simply don't know what you are talking about....but, you are very predictable. I've seen this all so many times before. Why don't you try getting on a forum where knowledgeable people can teach you something. Really. Your story has gone down in flames so many times before.
@dburt1 Our Rights are like a cookie. No matter how big the cookie and how small the bites, eventually you run out of cookie. If today’s so-called "States’ Rights" efforts are not directed at resolving the causes of the failure to achieve a truly federated form of government and to guarantee the citizen’s God-given rights, then it’s nothing more than self-serving partisan politics of the type that President George Washington warned us about in his Farewell Address. American Liberty has perished!
@dburt1 Since you are a Yankee that believes in might makes right, let's put aside the reasons the South seceded. Regardless of the issue, slavery or taxes, shouldn't a people who voluntarily joined a Union be allowed to voluntarily leave that Union? Where did Lincoln get his authority to wage war on the sovereign nation of the CSA? Suppose today that Italy and Greece decide to leave the EU. Does that give the other members the right to declare war on them? Whatever happened to States Rights?
@AmericanMilitiamen "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788
Respond to this video... Whether or not a state had a right to unilateral secession was a question for the Supreme Court. The South did not go that route. They raised armies, seized federal properties, and held federal soldiers in Texas prisoners, and finally, as a way to shove the remainder of the sister slave states into seceding, fired several thousand shells at a small federal garrison in Ft Sumter trying to galvanize the South with spilled blood.
@dburt1 24.5% of Southern families owned slaves? Please cite your sources. Even if 25% of Southern families owned slaves (which they did not), how did they convince the other 75% of families who did not own slaves to fight and die for slavery? 258,000 Southern men died in the bloodiest war in American history. They were fighting for States Rights not slavery. There was no law against slavery! Lincoln invaded the CSA because, "The cash cow got away!" Slavery was abolished in 1865 after the war!
@AmericanMilitiamen Cite my sources? The US Census - 1860. If you look it up at the University of Virginia cite you can easily query the information, state by state, and even county by county. A very good look at the concentrations of slave ownership can be had by anyone who is interested in the truth - and not just spreading lost cause bull. And it wasn't so much convincing others to fight as it was a matter of slaveowners thrusting eveyone else into war. They controlled everything.
@AmericanMilitiamen Anyone who fought for the confederacy fought to perpetuate slavery. THAT was the purpose of secession. THAT was the purpose of the confederacy. The leaders of the movement made no bones about it. Only apologists later on did. You have suckered into carrying it on for them.
Slavery in the USA differed significantly from slavery in the rest of the Americas. Far fewer slaves were brought into the USA, only around 500,000 compared to perhaps 12 to 13 million imported into the Caribbean and South and Central America. Most of these imports to North America ended by 1770. It was cheaper in the early years to bring in white laborers from England as indentured servants than to pay for slaves. The enslaved Africans often worked along side the indentured European laborers.
The census of 1860 determined that there were nearly 27 million Caucasians in the USA. Eight million Caucasians lived in the slaveholding states. Fewer than 385,000 individuals owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been Caucasian, which they were not (blacks / Indians owned slaves) that would amount to only 1.4% of Caucasians in the USA or 4.8% of southern Caucasians owning one or more Negro slaves. The War was not about slavery, it was about taxation! Watch the video and learn the truth.
@AmericanMilitiamen Your posts are full of nonsense. For instance, why would you bother to include whites who lived in free states in your calculation to get 1.4% of Americans who owned slaves? Why would you include all those people who weren't able to own slaves? Why didn't you include the 4 million slaves while you were at it to get the percentage even lower?
@dburt1 General Robert E. Lee speaking to former Confederate Governor of Texas Fletcher Stockdale said: “Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people [Yankees] designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.” And you wonder why Southerners have harsh feelings toward Yankees like you.
@AmericanMilitiamen Point is, which you will try to elude, is that you are trying to deceive that the frequency of slave ownership is lower than it is in your attempt to assert that 95% of southerners could have cared less about slaves. Honest people interested in history strive for the truth, not your kind of bullshit deception. Honest people refer to what percentage of FAMILIES owned slaves. They don't count the man as a slaveholder and his wife and children as disinterested non-owners.
@dburt1 According to John K. Thornton, Yankee slavers bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states. There were also Africans who had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them. Selling captives or prisoners was common practice amongst Africans and Arabs during that era. Yankee slavers provided a large new market for an already existing trade. No Southern ship ever brought a slave to the USA!
@dburt1 People often forget there were slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Over 3,000 slaves lived in Rhode Island in 1748, amounting to 9.1% of the population; 4,600 slaves were in New Jersey in 1745, 7.5% of the population; and 20,000 blacks lived in New York in 1771, 12.2% of the population.
@dburt1 Between 1817 and the mid-1840s, freed slave William Ellison gradually built a small empire, acquiring slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as Mississippi. From February 1817 when he was freed, until the War Between the States commenced, his business prospered immensely. Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave labor, that many white competitors simply went out of business.
@dburt1 "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia" was written by Ervin L. Jordan, Jr., an African-American professor at the University of Virginia. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."
@AmericanMilitiamen Yet another crock. Black slave ownership typically consisted of freed black men who bought their "wives" and/or children from a master. They could not afford to, and had no need to manumit them. Perhaps they would have paid out the bucks for legal manumission had they know that a hundred years later dishonest idiots would be trying to label them as "slave masters."
@dburt1 In 1860 there were eight Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. In Charleston, South Carolina 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners. Read History!
@AmericanMilitiamen What exactly is the point you are trying to make with the accounts of blacks owning slaves? Does this have some sort of relevance towards your pretended hatred of Lincoln or the North? And do you realize that just because someone is listed as negro does not mean they were an ex-slave. Many were European who came here to entrepreneur or manage the family business. But in the end, just what is your point?
@dburt1 According to USA census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the USA, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves. In fact, Negro slave magnate Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 owned over 100 slaves. That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978!
@dburt1 Since we know from the USA Census of 1860 that fewer than 5% of Southerns owned slaves, how did they convince the other 95% who did not own slaves to fight to preserve slavery? The War was not about slavery. That issue was settled by the Missouri Compromise. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. I taught Southern History for 45 years and have written many papers on the subject
@AmericanMilitiamen Your Morill tariff issue has no legs. No one falls for that bullshit. Have you been living under a rock? If you think you want to argue that one.....bring it on. I will pick apart your disinformation with ease. The fact that you rely on hacks like DiLorenzo, Adams, the Kennedy bros. etc is like announcing its opern season on dishonest morons. Bring it on.
@dburt1 In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. The census of 1860 determined that there were nearly 27 million whites in the USA. Eight million whites lived in the slaveholding states. Fewer than 385,000 individuals owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, which they were not (blacks and Indians owned slaves) that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves. Got it!
@dburt1 Slavery was setteled by the Missouri Compromise. A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This precipitated a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years. The War was not about slavery!
@AmericanMilitiamen Slavery satisfied by the Missouri Compromise??? You must be joking! Have you read no history at all? This just shows your complete ignorance of both the slavery issue and the tariff issue. I suggest you put down the neo-confederate revisionist crap and start studying material from 1845 to 1860. Start by studying the 1846, 1857 and 1861 tariff acts. Don't just accept the bull that DiLorenzo tells you about them. Look them up for yourself in the Congressional Globe.
@dburt1 In Lincoln's famous letter to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune. On Aug. 22, 1862, he wrote, "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." That was his position. He did not launch a war because of slavery; he launched a war to destroy the secession movement. Lincoln pushed for high tariffs and bludgeoned the South with them. Read History!
@AmericanMilitiamen You were doing alright with your assessment that Lincoln's objective in putting down the rebellion was to preserve the Union....then you had to screw it up with your nonsense about "bludgeoning the South" with tariffs, showing that you know next to nothing about the commerce of the mid-1800s. You do nothing but parrot the flaming claims of those who use you to push their bull. They laugh all the way to the bank and you end up being the idiot.
@dburt1 Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, who were certainly the staunchest Unionists, also said in an 1839 speech about secession that in "dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center." In other words, let them secede if they want, and we'll hope that they'll come to their senses and reunite someday. Hamilton said "to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised."
@dburt1 Tocqueville: "By uniting together, they have not forfeited their nationality nor been reduced to a condition of one and the same people." He went on to say that "if one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it will be difficult to disprove their right of doing so, and the federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims either directly or by force." There is a right of secession and the federal government has no right to force anybody to remain in the Union!
@dburt1 Pres. Monroe asked, "Has Congress the power to prohibit slavery in a Territory? And was the term " forever," to be understood as referring only to the territorial condition of the district to which it related, or an attempt to extend the prohibition of slavery to such States as might be erected therefrom?" Three years later the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. States Rights!
@dburt1 The War Between the States was not about slavery. Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical: "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
@AmericanMilitiamen Observers in Britian had mixed reactions. They were in the uncomfortable position of wanting the South's cotton while at the same time leading the condemnation of slavery. And then again, many were anxious to see the "American experiment" fail. But if you insist the Brits thought it was about tariffs, then read Richard Cobden's address to Parliament where he testifies that there was no agitation at all in America over tariffs,,,it was entirely absent.
@dburt1 The issue of secession settled by various Supreme Court decisions resolving questions tangential to the issue itself. In none of those cases was the Court asked to deal squarely with the issue of state secession when the outcome of the case impacted on the rights of the seceding states and those states were represented by counsel before the Court. The right of secession, protected as it is by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, is inalienable! The Union's invasion of the CSA was illegal!
@AmericanMilitiamen (the constant use of exclamation points is a sign of mental illness) The 9th amendment does not apply to any State's right to unilaterally secede, and the 10th amendment does not address rights, but rather powers. There had never been any "right of secession" to be protected by the Constitution. There was a natural right of rebellion, but never a constitutional right of secession. The only people who claimed one were those who desperately needed one.
@dburt1 Yankee Lawyer and author, James Ostrowski, of New York recently stated: "The Union's invasion and subsequent military occupation of the Confederacy were illegal. The existence of slavery in the Confederate States in 1861 cannot alter this truth. The Constitution did not forbid slavery prior to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Had Lincoln, in 1861, encountered America's greatest lawyer, Thomas Jefferson he would likely have told Lincoln, "Go back to your country Sir!"
@dburt1 The Decline of American Liberalism (New York: Atheneum, 1980), p. 122, 125 states: "Arbitrary arrests were made possible by Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. Persons were seized and confined on the suspicion of disloyalty or of sympathy with the southern cause. Thus, in the course of the Civil War, a total of thirteen thousand civilians was estimated to have been held as political prisoners, often without any sort of trial or after only cursory hearings before a military tribunal."
@dburt1 Prominent author, Albert Jay Nock was critical of the war's impact, especially on the Constitution: "Lincoln overruled the opinion of Chief Justice Taney that suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, and in consequence the mode of the State was, until 1865, a monocratic military despotism. Lincoln's acts resulted in a permanent radical change in the entire system of constitutional 'interpretation'. A strict constitutionalist would indeed say that the constitution died in 1861!"
@AmericanMilitiamen So, I notice all your bluster about the South being bludgeoned has now been reduced to offerings from assorted authors on their opinions of Lincoln and his acts. Have you any plans of addressing all the things you so far have been wrong about?
@dburt1 What have I been wrong about? You have your revisionist view of the War of Northern Aggression and I have mine supported by numerous sources, all of whom you discount. Thomas Jefferson, "The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government reserving ... and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect."
@AmericanMilitiamen What have you been wrong about? You've got to be kidding me. This is not a matter of "I have my version and you have yours". You have been factually wrong time and again. For instance, do you concede that the list of qualities that qualified the colonies (states) as independent were then prohibited to the states by the Constitution? Do you concede that your argument you were attempting to make was instantly deflated?
@dburt1 Jefferson forthrightly held that where the national government exercised powers not specifically delegated to it, each state has an equal right to judge the mode and measure of redress. He was confident in the good sense of the American people. He was determined, "... to sever ourselves from that union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness." Jefferson was a Southerner and a slaveholder as was Washington.
@dburt1 Quoting sources is not plagiarism you moron. When I give my opinion you discard it and call it crap. When I cite sources you discard them and call it plagiarism. You are truly pathetic. You have lost on every point and all you continue to do is fall back on the slavery issue. Face it you are a loser. And frankly, I do not have any more time to waste on you. You hate Southerners and the South for reasons known only to you. Fine. I could care less about your sick motivations. DEO VIDICE!
@AmericanMilitiamen For instance, your post starting with "Jefferson forthrightly held..." is not a cited quote, now is it. Almost the whole thing is plagiarism. Your posts reek of it. As for your denial of your having been suckered in to so much ahistorical disinformation, it happens whenever this thing is debated. If you want to remain in your fantasy about the poor oppressed South, you need to find refuge in a fellowship of southrons, otherwise known as a circle-jerk.
@dburt1 All thirteen original states, which seceded from England in 1776 and which formed the United States of America, fowned slaves. Was the First American Revolution fought over slavery? If not, then neither was the Second American Revolution fought over slavery when the Southern states withdrew from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. During the War for Southern Independence, many in the North also had slaves, but refused to free their slaves until after the War.
@CRAPCANNONS There are several good books on the War Between the States: The South Was Right, The Real Lincoln, America's Caesar, Why Not Freedom, A Short History of Reconstruction, Myths of American Slavery, A Defense of Virginia and the South, Union and Liberty, and When In the Course of Human Events are all good books that will give you the real history of that period not the twisted lies being taught in our government schools. Just remember, the freedom of 1176 died in 1865!
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war. And Lincoln did NOT have the approval of Congress when he declared war on the CSA. Also, slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, so the Emancipation Proclamation actually amounted to a federal seizure of private property.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
Here are the facts: As the War began, Lincoln's sole issue was restoration of the Union for purposes of restoring lost tax revenues, not ending slavery. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves, inherited by his wife, whereas Union General Grant did not free his slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 I am proud of the struggle of our people for independence in 1861--1865, which was truly heroic and produced leaders that won the admiration of the world. I do not wish to reinstate slavery though I would like to restore the U.S. Constitution if possible. What I want is for my people's unique and admirable culture to flourish and decide its own future. This is a positive mission in tune with a changing world. If we don't accomplish that goal the future will be sad indeed. DEO VINDICE!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Why are you proud of a slaveowner oligarchy that pushed the South into secession and war to protect and preserve slavery so that they could enjoy their ever increasing aristocracy? We should all find the cemetaries of these fire-eaters and piss on their graves. The only liberty these guys cared about was theirs, their liberty to ride around all day in buggies and smoke cigars while the fruits of someone elses labors are taken at gunpoint. Proud of that?
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Thomas Jefferson expressed his opinion on the Missouri Compromise in a letter to John Holms dated April 22, 1820. Jefferson writes that the Missouri question, "like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union." April 13, 1820, Jefferson wrote that the "Missouri question aroused and filled me with alarm...I have been among the most sanguine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much."
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Lincoln supported the Illinois constitutional change in the 1840s that prohibited the immigration of black people into the state of Illinois. His career-long position on the race issue was colonization. He advocated sending every last black person in America back to Haiti, Central America, Africa . To Congress in 1862: "I cannot make it any better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." Like you said, that's not what we learned in the history books in school!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 The story of Lincoln and racial equality is there for anyone who wants to read it. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, he said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races, and I have never said anything to the contrary." He went on in the same speech in Ottawa, Ill., in 1858 to say that he was not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office and not to intermarry with white people.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Your posts are little more than a repeat of the drivel found in apologists handbooks. They are nothing but snipets of out of context material, deceptions, and disingenuous half-truths. I'm not surprised that you have decided to pass on "educating" me of the tariff issue in 1860. What's the problem? No mind of your own?
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, 1860, U.S. Major Anderson surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter. Major Anderson refused to surrender. After 34 hours of shelling, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Don't try to dismiss this as not being an act of war by the confederates just because nobody was directly killed in the shelling. The confederacy was stillborn, with only half of the slave states joining. Without Virginia and Tenn it was doomed. Reducing Sumter was a ploy to draw blood to force the remainder of slave states to disunion. Try reading the speeches of the secession commissioners if you insist on parroting that it all had nothing to do with slavery.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Again, if a State joins the Union of its own free will it has the right to leave without the permission of the Supreme court. Why did the North want to keep the South in the Union? Because they made so much money from taxes and tariffs! Lincoln himself referred to the South as the "cash cow". Why force someone to stay married if they want a divorce? You are a typical might is right Yankee. I would be thrilled if we would secede today and let you people wallow in your corrupt government!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen When the original states ratified the Constitution they agreed to abide by its terms, and the Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter. As in contracts, one party cannot simply leave when it doesn't like something, like the outcome of an election. The South had controlled the federal government for almost all of its history till then, and now they were pissed because a man was elected president who wasn't even on their ballots. They had lost control..time to run.
dburt1 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen ...and as for tariffs...you shouldn't even go there in your current state of ignorance. You don't know squat about them, and what you think you know is only the lies you've been misled with from your "deo vindice" books.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Jefferson's draft of the Declaration proclaims the sovereignty of the new States: " finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, and that as free and independent states they shall hereafter have the power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do". The United States, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their government!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Did you happen to notice that all the things you point out that Jefferson used to describe independent states were then PROHIBITED to the states in the US Constitution? So....by your own logic, the sovereignty of the states was ceded to the national government when they ratified the Constitution. Actually, if you'll read federalist Paper #39, you'll see Madison describe it as a hybrid of federal and national powers.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Again the South fought the war for essentially the same reason that the American colonies fought the Revolutionary War, TAXES! After the enactment of what was called the "Tariff of Abomination" in 1828, promoted by Henry Clay, the tax on imports ranged between 20-30%. It rose further in March 1861 when Lincoln, signed the Morrill Tariff into law. This tax was far more onerous than the one forced on the American colonies by Britain in the 18th century. Please read some real history books!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen PLEASE, I beg of you. Don't write about tariffs. They are my specialty. Your regurgitating of the crap you think you know about them is going to make me want to puke. Hint: The "tariff of abomination" was a political ploy by Calhoun and his buddies to get Jackson elected over Adams. It has NOTHING to do with any of the tariff issues of 1860. Another hint: Lincoln did not sign the 1861 Morrill Tariff into law. It was already law when he took office.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Congress was adjourned at the time Lincoln declared war on the CSA! Ignoring his constitutional duty to call this legislative branch of government back in session during a time of emergency, Lincoln assumed dictatorial powers and did things, like declaring a war and raising an army, that only Congress is supposed to do. He shut down more than 400 newspapers that disagreed with his war policy. He ordered his military officers to lock up thousands of political opponents! Your hero Lincoln!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Lincoln did have the Constitutional power to call up troops while Congress was out. It was addressed by the SCOTUS and you are simply wrong again. he did not shut down 400 newspapers and imprison thousands of political opponents. Sheesh......;do you believe EVERYTHING you read. Get the message....you are being lied to by the authors of the materials you are reading. I have always thought that would piss people off, but curiously, it doesn't bother neo-confederates.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Here are the facts: As the war began, the sole issue was restoration of the Union -- not ending slavery. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves, inherited by his wife's estate, prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant's wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South. Oops!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen As the war began, the issue was preserving the Union, not ending slavery. But that is not the same as saying the war had nothing to do with slavery, as you have. Saving the Union was made necessary by the South's secession, which was done to preserve slavery. Without the issue of slavery, there's no rebellion, and no war. Your claim of secession to escape being plundered by the North is nothing but "lost cause" fantasy, invented to make the rebellion appear honorable.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 There was NO attempt by either side in the War Between the States to resort to federal courts or international arbitrators for a decision on the legality of secession. As settled as secession may be as a political or historical issue to some, it has never been settled as a legal one. There have been no textual changes to the Constitution which explicitly prohibit secession. The recent revival of secession talk in Texas and other States shows people yearn for the days of freedom again!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Of course there was no case brought.... seven states instead chose rebellion and seized federal properties. They chose trial by fire. They started a war. If you think unilateral secession has never been settled as a legal issue, I suggest you look at Texas v White, 1869.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 The CSA did not rebel, they legally seceded and formed their own country. Those properties that lay within the CSA now belonged to them and not the USA. I am sure King George felt the same as you when the American colonies "rebelled against his authority". You really do hate liberty and individual freedom. To you the State is all powerful and anyone who disagrees with you and the State needs to be brought into submission by military force. Yet I bet you are for the Arab Freedom Movement.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen "You really do hate liberty and individual freedom. To you the State is all powerful and anyone who disagrees with you and the State needs to be brought into submission by military force. Yet I bet you are for the Arab Freedom Movement."
So, when you realize you are bankrupt for knowledge, you invent crap to throw. Its ironic that you think opponents of the confederacy dedicated to slavery must hate liberty and individual freedom. That's funny,,,and pretty idiotic.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 In Texas v. White the court's opinion ruling that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, a former cabinet member under Abraham Lincoln. Chase articulated the "Slave Power conspiracy" thesis well before Lincoln. Author Harold M. Hyman argues that in two cases - Re Turner (1867) and Texas v. White (1869) - Chase combined his abolitionist philosophy with an activist jurisprudence to deliver prejudiced verdicts.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen First you claim it was never addressed in court, now you simply don't like the outcome because of the Chief Justice. Maybe if a slaveholder Chief Justice like Taney had still been alive you would have your respect for the court restored.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 I said the issue of Secession was never presented in Court BEFORE the War moron. And yes, maybe the verdicts from the Chase court would have been more balanced if they had some former slaveholders like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington seated on the bench with this bigoted lunatic! Chase had such a hatred for the South, like you have, that there was no way a fair verdict was ever going to be rendered. You are so blinded by hate for the South that you cannot form a cohesive thought.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Before the war? Nope, wrong again. Here is what you said: "As settled as secession may be as a political or historical issue to some, it has never been settled as a legal one. There have been no textual changes to the Constitution which explicitly prohibit secession. The recent revival of secession talk in Texas and other States shows people yearn for the days of freedom again!" This was the post I was answering with Texas v White. You can't even understand...you.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 I was referring to Texas today, not the Texas v White case. Hence, "The recent revival of secession talk in Texas and other States shows people yearn for the days of freedom again!" Got It?
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 You continue to say the Supreme Court sided with Lincoln on going to war without the permission of Congress. Source: "The Lawmen: United States Marshals and their Deputies, 1789–1989". This historical study gives a detailed account of an arrest warrant, signed by President Abraham Lincoln for Chief Justice Taney. US Marshal Laman recalls that, "Lincoln gave the warrant to him, instructing him to arrest Taney on sight". Laman never served the warrant because he knew it was illegal.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Charles W. Smith, a biographer of Taney (1973), gives this account of the scope of the arrests of civilians: Without the sanction of law the federal government arrested men by the thousands and confined them in military prisons. The number of such executive arrests was certainly over 13,000, and it has been estimated to have been as high as 38,000 (Columbia Law Review, XXI, 527–28, 1921). These are proven facts that cannot be swept under the rug by Lincoln cult followers like you.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Lincoln The Dictator: When Lincoln illegally suspended habeas corpus, John Merryman was arrested for insurrectionary activities. Merryman petitioned for a habeas corpus writ, which Chief Justice Taney granted. The commanding officer at Fort McHenry refused to release Merryman, citing Lincoln's edict. With the army loyal to Lincoln, Taney couldn't enforce his order and railed against the president while Merryman was in jail for seven more weeks. After being freed, he was never tried!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 I am totally confused. You admit that Lincoln illegally invaded the CSA to preserve the Union and not to end slavery. That is because slavery was not illegal in 1860 you knuckle head! Got it! You need to read some real history instead of the public school revisionist pap that you keep citing. For some reason you choose to ignore all the facts and keep harping on slavery as the cause for the War. If slavery was not illegal why would Lincoln invade the CSA? What were his motives?
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Grow up and don't put words in my mouth. I did not say Lincoln "illegally invaded" the South. And if you care to look back, you will see that you have been waging a straw man argument against some idea that the Union started out fighting the war to end slavery. No one here has ever claimed that. However, if you are capable of understanding compound thoughts, slavery was the cause of the war. It was the cause of the rebellion. Secessionists admitted it...you can't.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Since you admit that slavery was not the issue that started the war, and slavery was legal at that time how was slavery a concern? People in the North including your beloved General Grant owned slaves all throughout the War. So get off your phony indignant moral high horse about slavery. No one alive today condones slavery, but in every century but this one people have been slave holders, and in Africa they still practice slavery even to this day. Focus on the issue - States Rights!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 If slavery was legal in the USA and later in the CSA from 1776 until 1865 how could Lincoln possibly attack the South in 1861 for seceding if slavery were the issue as you claim. Slavery was practiced in both the North and the South and could only be ended by law, not at the point of a bayonet. You are a Lincoln worshiper as are most people today because of the revisionist history taught in our dismal public schools. Lincoln was an American Caesar who invaded the CSA without legal cause!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war. Got it meathead! And Lincoln did NOT have the approval of Congress when he declared war on the CSA. Quit drinking the Yankee public school kool-aid and read some real history will you.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 U. S. tariff revenues fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen god...so much plagiarism. Can't you write anything of your own? This story of the South paying 87% of revenues from tariffs is soooo old and boring. Why don't you tell where this 87% was collected on imports in 1860. Was it New Orleans? Charleston? Mobile? Maybe Houston. Maybe St Louis or Nashville. Please, tell me. I can't wait.
And while you're at it, please tell what kinds of expenditures were made on "the North" too.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Why don't you tell us exactly what gave your hero, Lincoln, the right to invade the Confederate States of America, a sovereign nation, since slavery was not illegal at the time.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 You keep screaming "Plagiarism!" every time I cite facts. Where are you getting all your "original thoughts"? Apparently out of your ass! You discredit all sources I have cited as irrelevant. Obviously your sources are 8th grade drivel written about your hero Lincoln by revisionist historians. Again, since slavery was not illegal at the time Lincoln invaded the South and you say the War was not over States Rights or taxes, please be so kind and tell us all why Lincoln invaded the CSA!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
In the 1860 election, Lincoln campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Lincoln further endorsed the Morrill Tariff and its concepts in his first inaugural speech and signed the Act into law a few days after taking office in March of 1861. Southern protests had been of no avail. Now the South was inflamed with righteous indignation, and Southern leaders began to call for Secession. Got It?
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Not much time for your nonsense tonight. Lincoln did not campaign for the 1860 tariff bill. He was not even the republican candidate when the bill was passed in the House. As I already told you, he DID NOT sign the bill into law. Buchanan did. It was already law when Lincoln took office. Before the bill was passed in the Senate, all of the deep South had already seceded. Had they stayed, they had the numbers to defeat the bill in the Senate. Your timeline is fucked.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Abraham Lincoln's record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill helped him to secure support in the important electoral college states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.Two additional tariffs sponsored by Morrill, each one higher, were passed during Abraham Lincoln's administration. Passage was possible because Southerners had left Congress after their states declared their secession.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen As further evidence that the tariff had nothing to do with secession, when the bill was passed in the Senate and became law, it caused none of the remaining slave states to secede. You simply don't know what you are talking about....but, you are very predictable. I've seen this all so many times before. Why don't you try getting on a forum where knowledgeable people can teach you something. Really. Your story has gone down in flames so many times before.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Our Rights are like a cookie. No matter how big the cookie and how small the bites, eventually you run out of cookie. If today’s so-called "States’ Rights" efforts are not directed at resolving the causes of the failure to achieve a truly federated form of government and to guarantee the citizen’s God-given rights, then it’s nothing more than self-serving partisan politics of the type that President George Washington warned us about in his Farewell Address. American Liberty has perished!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Since you are a Yankee that believes in might makes right, let's put aside the reasons the South seceded. Regardless of the issue, slavery or taxes, shouldn't a people who voluntarily joined a Union be allowed to voluntarily leave that Union? Where did Lincoln get his authority to wage war on the sovereign nation of the CSA? Suppose today that Italy and Greece decide to leave the EU. Does that give the other members the right to declare war on them? Whatever happened to States Rights?
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788
dburt1 10 months ago
Respond to this video... Whether or not a state had a right to unilateral secession was a question for the Supreme Court. The South did not go that route. They raised armies, seized federal properties, and held federal soldiers in Texas prisoners, and finally, as a way to shove the remainder of the sister slave states into seceding, fired several thousand shells at a small federal garrison in Ft Sumter trying to galvanize the South with spilled blood.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 24.5% of Southern families owned slaves? Please cite your sources. Even if 25% of Southern families owned slaves (which they did not), how did they convince the other 75% of families who did not own slaves to fight and die for slavery? 258,000 Southern men died in the bloodiest war in American history. They were fighting for States Rights not slavery. There was no law against slavery! Lincoln invaded the CSA because, "The cash cow got away!" Slavery was abolished in 1865 after the war!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Cite my sources? The US Census - 1860. If you look it up at the University of Virginia cite you can easily query the information, state by state, and even county by county. A very good look at the concentrations of slave ownership can be had by anyone who is interested in the truth - and not just spreading lost cause bull. And it wasn't so much convincing others to fight as it was a matter of slaveowners thrusting eveyone else into war. They controlled everything.
dburt1 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Anyone who fought for the confederacy fought to perpetuate slavery. THAT was the purpose of secession. THAT was the purpose of the confederacy. The leaders of the movement made no bones about it. Only apologists later on did. You have suckered into carrying it on for them.
dburt1 10 months ago
Slavery in the USA differed significantly from slavery in the rest of the Americas. Far fewer slaves were brought into the USA, only around 500,000 compared to perhaps 12 to 13 million imported into the Caribbean and South and Central America. Most of these imports to North America ended by 1770. It was cheaper in the early years to bring in white laborers from England as indentured servants than to pay for slaves. The enslaved Africans often worked along side the indentured European laborers.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
The census of 1860 determined that there were nearly 27 million Caucasians in the USA. Eight million Caucasians lived in the slaveholding states. Fewer than 385,000 individuals owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been Caucasian, which they were not (blacks / Indians owned slaves) that would amount to only 1.4% of Caucasians in the USA or 4.8% of southern Caucasians owning one or more Negro slaves. The War was not about slavery, it was about taxation! Watch the video and learn the truth.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Your posts are full of nonsense. For instance, why would you bother to include whites who lived in free states in your calculation to get 1.4% of Americans who owned slaves? Why would you include all those people who weren't able to own slaves? Why didn't you include the 4 million slaves while you were at it to get the percentage even lower?
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 General Robert E. Lee speaking to former Confederate Governor of Texas Fletcher Stockdale said: “Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people [Yankees] designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.” And you wonder why Southerners have harsh feelings toward Yankees like you.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Point is, which you will try to elude, is that you are trying to deceive that the frequency of slave ownership is lower than it is in your attempt to assert that 95% of southerners could have cared less about slaves. Honest people interested in history strive for the truth, not your kind of bullshit deception. Honest people refer to what percentage of FAMILIES owned slaves. They don't count the man as a slaveholder and his wife and children as disinterested non-owners.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 According to John K. Thornton, Yankee slavers bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states. There were also Africans who had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them. Selling captives or prisoners was common practice amongst Africans and Arabs during that era. Yankee slavers provided a large new market for an already existing trade. No Southern ship ever brought a slave to the USA!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 People often forget there were slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Over 3,000 slaves lived in Rhode Island in 1748, amounting to 9.1% of the population; 4,600 slaves were in New Jersey in 1745, 7.5% of the population; and 20,000 blacks lived in New York in 1771, 12.2% of the population.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Between 1817 and the mid-1840s, freed slave William Ellison gradually built a small empire, acquiring slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as Mississippi. From February 1817 when he was freed, until the War Between the States commenced, his business prospered immensely. Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave labor, that many white competitors simply went out of business.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia" was written by Ervin L. Jordan, Jr., an African-American professor at the University of Virginia. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Yet another crock. Black slave ownership typically consisted of freed black men who bought their "wives" and/or children from a master. They could not afford to, and had no need to manumit them. Perhaps they would have paid out the bucks for legal manumission had they know that a hundred years later dishonest idiots would be trying to label them as "slave masters."
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 In 1860 there were eight Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. In Charleston, South Carolina 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners. Read History!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen What exactly is the point you are trying to make with the accounts of blacks owning slaves? Does this have some sort of relevance towards your pretended hatred of Lincoln or the North? And do you realize that just because someone is listed as negro does not mean they were an ex-slave. Many were European who came here to entrepreneur or manage the family business. But in the end, just what is your point?
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 According to USA census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the USA, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves. In fact, Negro slave magnate Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 owned over 100 slaves. That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Since we know from the USA Census of 1860 that fewer than 5% of Southerns owned slaves, how did they convince the other 95% who did not own slaves to fight to preserve slavery? The War was not about slavery. That issue was settled by the Missouri Compromise. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. I taught Southern History for 45 years and have written many papers on the subject
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Your Morill tariff issue has no legs. No one falls for that bullshit. Have you been living under a rock? If you think you want to argue that one.....bring it on. I will pick apart your disinformation with ease. The fact that you rely on hacks like DiLorenzo, Adams, the Kennedy bros. etc is like announcing its opern season on dishonest morons. Bring it on.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. The census of 1860 determined that there were nearly 27 million whites in the USA. Eight million whites lived in the slaveholding states. Fewer than 385,000 individuals owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, which they were not (blacks and Indians owned slaves) that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves. Got it!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Slavery was setteled by the Missouri Compromise. A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This precipitated a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years. The War was not about slavery!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Slavery satisfied by the Missouri Compromise??? You must be joking! Have you read no history at all? This just shows your complete ignorance of both the slavery issue and the tariff issue. I suggest you put down the neo-confederate revisionist crap and start studying material from 1845 to 1860. Start by studying the 1846, 1857 and 1861 tariff acts. Don't just accept the bull that DiLorenzo tells you about them. Look them up for yourself in the Congressional Globe.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 In Lincoln's famous letter to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune. On Aug. 22, 1862, he wrote, "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." That was his position. He did not launch a war because of slavery; he launched a war to destroy the secession movement. Lincoln pushed for high tariffs and bludgeoned the South with them. Read History!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen You were doing alright with your assessment that Lincoln's objective in putting down the rebellion was to preserve the Union....then you had to screw it up with your nonsense about "bludgeoning the South" with tariffs, showing that you know next to nothing about the commerce of the mid-1800s. You do nothing but parrot the flaming claims of those who use you to push their bull. They laugh all the way to the bank and you end up being the idiot.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, who were certainly the staunchest Unionists, also said in an 1839 speech about secession that in "dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center." In other words, let them secede if they want, and we'll hope that they'll come to their senses and reunite someday. Hamilton said "to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised."
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Tocqueville: "By uniting together, they have not forfeited their nationality nor been reduced to a condition of one and the same people." He went on to say that "if one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it will be difficult to disprove their right of doing so, and the federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims either directly or by force." There is a right of secession and the federal government has no right to force anybody to remain in the Union!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Pres. Monroe asked, "Has Congress the power to prohibit slavery in a Territory? And was the term " forever," to be understood as referring only to the territorial condition of the district to which it related, or an attempt to extend the prohibition of slavery to such States as might be erected therefrom?" Three years later the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. States Rights!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 The War Between the States was not about slavery. Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical: "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Observers in Britian had mixed reactions. They were in the uncomfortable position of wanting the South's cotton while at the same time leading the condemnation of slavery. And then again, many were anxious to see the "American experiment" fail. But if you insist the Brits thought it was about tariffs, then read Richard Cobden's address to Parliament where he testifies that there was no agitation at all in America over tariffs,,,it was entirely absent.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 The issue of secession settled by various Supreme Court decisions resolving questions tangential to the issue itself. In none of those cases was the Court asked to deal squarely with the issue of state secession when the outcome of the case impacted on the rights of the seceding states and those states were represented by counsel before the Court. The right of secession, protected as it is by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, is inalienable! The Union's invasion of the CSA was illegal!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen (the constant use of exclamation points is a sign of mental illness) The 9th amendment does not apply to any State's right to unilaterally secede, and the 10th amendment does not address rights, but rather powers. There had never been any "right of secession" to be protected by the Constitution. There was a natural right of rebellion, but never a constitutional right of secession. The only people who claimed one were those who desperately needed one.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Yankee Lawyer and author, James Ostrowski, of New York recently stated: "The Union's invasion and subsequent military occupation of the Confederacy were illegal. The existence of slavery in the Confederate States in 1861 cannot alter this truth. The Constitution did not forbid slavery prior to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Had Lincoln, in 1861, encountered America's greatest lawyer, Thomas Jefferson he would likely have told Lincoln, "Go back to your country Sir!"
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 The Decline of American Liberalism (New York: Atheneum, 1980), p. 122, 125 states: "Arbitrary arrests were made possible by Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. Persons were seized and confined on the suspicion of disloyalty or of sympathy with the southern cause. Thus, in the course of the Civil War, a total of thirteen thousand civilians was estimated to have been held as political prisoners, often without any sort of trial or after only cursory hearings before a military tribunal."
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@dburt1 Prominent author, Albert Jay Nock was critical of the war's impact, especially on the Constitution: "Lincoln overruled the opinion of Chief Justice Taney that suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, and in consequence the mode of the State was, until 1865, a monocratic military despotism. Lincoln's acts resulted in a permanent radical change in the entire system of constitutional 'interpretation'. A strict constitutionalist would indeed say that the constitution died in 1861!"
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen So, I notice all your bluster about the South being bludgeoned has now been reduced to offerings from assorted authors on their opinions of Lincoln and his acts. Have you any plans of addressing all the things you so far have been wrong about?
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 What have I been wrong about? You have your revisionist view of the War of Northern Aggression and I have mine supported by numerous sources, all of whom you discount. Thomas Jefferson, "The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government reserving ... and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect."
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen What have you been wrong about? You've got to be kidding me. This is not a matter of "I have my version and you have yours". You have been factually wrong time and again. For instance, do you concede that the list of qualities that qualified the colonies (states) as independent were then prohibited to the states by the Constitution? Do you concede that your argument you were attempting to make was instantly deflated?
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Jefferson forthrightly held that where the national government exercised powers not specifically delegated to it, each state has an equal right to judge the mode and measure of redress. He was confident in the good sense of the American people. He was determined, "... to sever ourselves from that union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness." Jefferson was a Southerner and a slaveholder as was Washington.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Why so much plagiarism? Don't you have thoughts of your own?
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 Quoting sources is not plagiarism you moron. When I give my opinion you discard it and call it crap. When I cite sources you discard them and call it plagiarism. You are truly pathetic. You have lost on every point and all you continue to do is fall back on the slavery issue. Face it you are a loser. And frankly, I do not have any more time to waste on you. You hate Southerners and the South for reasons known only to you. Fine. I could care less about your sick motivations. DEO VIDICE!
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
@AmericanMilitiamen For instance, your post starting with "Jefferson forthrightly held..." is not a cited quote, now is it. Almost the whole thing is plagiarism. Your posts reek of it. As for your denial of your having been suckered in to so much ahistorical disinformation, it happens whenever this thing is debated. If you want to remain in your fantasy about the poor oppressed South, you need to find refuge in a fellowship of southrons, otherwise known as a circle-jerk.
dburt1 10 months ago
@dburt1 All thirteen original states, which seceded from England in 1776 and which formed the United States of America, fowned slaves. Was the First American Revolution fought over slavery? If not, then neither was the Second American Revolution fought over slavery when the Southern states withdrew from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. During the War for Southern Independence, many in the North also had slaves, but refused to free their slaves until after the War.
AmericanMilitiamen 10 months ago
Interesting facts.
Where can one find them?
CRAPCANNONS 1 year ago
@CRAPCANNONS There are several good books on the War Between the States: The South Was Right, The Real Lincoln, America's Caesar, Why Not Freedom, A Short History of Reconstruction, Myths of American Slavery, A Defense of Virginia and the South, Union and Liberty, and When In the Course of Human Events are all good books that will give you the real history of that period not the twisted lies being taught in our government schools. Just remember, the freedom of 1176 died in 1865!
AmericanMilitiamen 1 year ago
@AmericanMilitiamen Sorry for the typo: Just Remember the freedom of 1776 died in 1865!
AmericanMilitiamen 1 year ago
@AmericanMilitiamen
Cool. Thanks!
CRAPCANNONS 1 year ago