Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

Nor do you have any proof that the north would not have eventually forced them to do so. The abolitionist movement was very real and a legitimate, growing threat to the right to own another human being. Southern politicians were not stupid. They saw the writing on the wall in foresight that you want to ignore in hindsight.

---

Well, The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott already defended the Constitutionality of Slavery.

And with the Corwin amendment that would have massively strengthened protections in the future. Specifically saying, "The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed."

But in the end I am not making any future based arguments.

Cowboys says he knows what the future held....I don't make that claim.

I can simply say it is unlikely given the evidence.

And moral and economic arguments leading to a buyout of slavery such as in Brazil being the more likely end point. But of course we can't know that...given traditional Puritan greed its possible the New England Senators would have never agreed to part with a single dollar to free a black slave.

You for some strange reason wish to overstate the support for abolitionism in the North. As the histories shows us.....the average Northerner disliked abolitionists. And disliked them almost as much as he disliked black people in general.

[In Illinois, at the time, an abolitionist was rarely seen, and scarcely ever heard of. In many parts of the State such a person would have been treated as a criminal. It was only when it was proposed to introduce slavery into Illinois by an alteration of that "heathen" Constitution, that the Covenanters consented to take part in public affairs. Many of the antislavery leaders in this contest-conspicuous among whom was Gov. Coles- were gentleman from Slave States, who had emancipated their slaves, and were opposed to slavery, not upon religious or moral grounds, but because they believed it would be a material injury to the new country. Practically no other view of the question was discussed; and a person who should have undertaken to discuss it from the "man and brother" stand point of the more modern times would have been set down as a lunatic. A clear majority of the people were against the introduction of slavery in the State; but that majority were fully agreed with their brethren of the minority, that those who went about to interfere with slavery in the most distant manner in the places where it already existed were deserving of the severest punishment, as common enemies of society. It was a moral offense to call a man abolitionist, for abolitionist was synonymous with theft and crime.] The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon

---

Agree or disagree:
Southern states tried to leave the union in large partbecause they believed that their right to own other human beings was under threat by the northern abolitionists.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

Nor do you have any proof that the north would not have eventually forced them to do so. The abolitionist movement was very real and a legitimate, growing threat to the right to own another human being. Southern politicians were not stupid. They saw the writing on the wall in foresight that you want to ignore in hindsight.

---

[In Illinois, at the time, an abolitionist was rarely seen, and scarcely ever heard of. In many parts of the State such a person would have been treated as a criminal. It was only when it was proposed to introduce slavery into Illinois by an alteration of that "heathen" Constitution, that the Covenanters consented to take part in public affairs. Many of the antislavery leaders in this contest-conspicuous among whom was Gov. Coles- were gentleman from Slave States, who had emancipated their slaves, and were opposed to slavery, not upon religious or moral grounds, but because they believed it would be a material injury to the new country. Practically no other view of the question was discussed; and a person who should have undertaken to discuss it from the "man and brother" stand point of the more modern times would have been set down as a lunatic. A clear majority of the people were against the introduction of slavery in the State; but that majority were fully agreed with their brethren of the minority, that those who went about to interfere with slavery in the most distant manner in the places where it already existed were deserving of the severest punishment, as common enemies of society. It was a moral offense to call a man abolitionist, for abolitionist was synonymous with theft and crime.] The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon

---

Agree or disagree:
Southern states tried to leave the union in large partbecause they believed that their right to own other human beings was under threat by the northern abolitionists.

---

Agree or disagree:

Southern States owing slaves gave the U.S. Federal government the right to wage ruthless war on them and deny them the right Northern States had exercised in 1776?

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

Nor do you have any proof that the north would not have eventually forced them to do so. The abolitionist movement was very real and a legitimate, growing threat to the right to own another human being. Southern politicians were not stupid. They saw the writing on the wall in foresight that you want to ignore in hindsight.

---

[In Illinois, at the time, an abolitionist was rarely seen, and scarcely ever heard of. In many parts of the State such a person would have been treated as a criminal. It was only when it was proposed to introduce slavery into Illinois by an alteration of that "heathen" Constitution, that the Covenanters consented to take part in public affairs. Many of the antislavery leaders in this contest-conspicuous among whom was Gov. Coles- were gentleman from Slave States, who had emancipated their slaves, and were opposed to slavery, not upon religious or moral grounds, but because they believed it would be a material injury to the new country. Practically no other view of the question was discussed; and a person who should have undertaken to discuss it from the "man and brother" stand point of the more modern times would have been set down as a lunatic. A clear majority of the people were against the introduction of slavery in the State; but that majority were fully agreed with their brethren of the minority, that those who went about to interfere with slavery in the most distant manner in the places where it already existed were deserving of the severest punishment, as common enemies of society. It was a moral offense to call a man abolitionist, for abolitionist was synonymous with theft and crime.] The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon

---

Agree or disagree:
Southern states tried to leave the union in large partbecause they believed that their right to own other human beings was under threat by the northern abolitionists.

---

Agree or disagree:

Southern States owing slaves gave the U.S. Federal government the right to wage ruthless war on them and deny them the right Northern States had exercised in 1776?

---

I will be more than happy to answer that question after you answer mine.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

I have 4 years of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths as proof.

You however have zero proof for your stance. NONE.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

GrowlTowel said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

You didn't take Dr. Armitstead's class did you?

---

I did but that doesn't over rule the facts of the war or the fact that the majority of historians agree with me and I have posted it numerous times on here but people want to argue and post quotes that are off topic and prove nothing.

The civil war was about slavery. Look at every single state that seceded and their reasons for doing so in their articles of secession. Slavery is mentioned multiple times. Not state's rights. Slavery.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

Nor do you have any proof that the north would not have eventually forced them to do so. The abolitionist movement was very real and a legitimate, growing threat to the right to own another human being. Southern politicians were not stupid. They saw the writing on the wall in foresight that you want to ignore in hindsight.

---

Well, The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott already defended the Constitutionality of Slavery.

And with the Corwin amendment that would have massively strengthened protections in the future. Specifically saying, "The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed."

But in the end I am not making any future based arguments.

Cowboys says he knows what the future held....I don't make that claim.

I can simply say it is unlikely given the evidence.

And moral and economic arguments leading to a buyout of slavery such as in Brazil being the more likely end point. But of course we can't know that...given traditional Puritan greed its possible the New England Senators would have never agreed to part with a single dollar to free a black slave.

You for some strange reason wish to overstate the support for abolitionism in the North. As the histories shows us.....the average Northerner disliked abolitionists. And disliked them almost as much as he disliked black people in general.

[In Illinois, at the time, an abolitionist was rarely seen, and scarcely ever heard of. In many parts of the State such a person would have been treated as a criminal. It was only when it was proposed to introduce slavery into Illinois by an alteration of that "heathen" Constitution, that the Covenanters consented to take part in public affairs. Many of the antislavery leaders in this contest-conspicuous among whom was Gov. Coles- were gentleman from Slave States, who had emancipated their slaves, and were opposed to slavery, not upon religious or moral grounds, but because they believed it would be a material injury to the new country. Practically no other view of the question was discussed; and a person who should have undertaken to discuss it from the "man and brother" stand point of the more modern times would have been set down as a lunatic. A clear majority of the people were against the introduction of slavery in the State; but that majority were fully agreed with their brethren of the minority, that those who went about to interfere with slavery in the most distant manner in the places where it already existed were deserving of the severest punishment, as common enemies of society. It was a moral offense to call a man abolitionist, for abolitionist was synonymous with theft and crime.] The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon

---

The future after Dred Scott held that the racist south would secede to keep their slaves, fire the first shots starting a war that killed hundreds of thousands because they wanted to keep owning people.

Without that war their is no evidence that they would have just let them all go free. Maybe in another 200 years they might have but zero evidence they would have then.

You have zero evidence they were going to and keep putting in quotes that don't even begin to prove it.

Put one quote from a slave owning state of a timeline they were going to abolish slavery. Just one.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

Nor do you have any proof that the north would not have eventually forced them to do so. The abolitionist movement was very real and a legitimate, growing threat to the right to own another human being. Southern politicians were not stupid. They saw the writing on the wall in foresight that you want to ignore in hindsight.

---

[In Illinois, at the time, an abolitionist was rarely seen, and scarcely ever heard of. In many parts of the State such a person would have been treated as a criminal. It was only when it was proposed to introduce slavery into Illinois by an alteration of that "heathen" Constitution, that the Covenanters consented to take part in public affairs. Many of the antislavery leaders in this contest-conspicuous among whom was Gov. Coles- were gentleman from Slave States, who had emancipated their slaves, and were opposed to slavery, not upon religious or moral grounds, but because they believed it would be a material injury to the new country. Practically no other view of the question was discussed; and a person who should have undertaken to discuss it from the "man and brother" stand point of the more modern times would have been set down as a lunatic. A clear majority of the people were against the introduction of slavery in the State; but that majority were fully agreed with their brethren of the minority, that those who went about to interfere with slavery in the most distant manner in the places where it already existed were deserving of the severest punishment, as common enemies of society. It was a moral offense to call a man abolitionist, for abolitionist was synonymous with theft and crime.] The Life of Abraham Lincoln, By Ward Lamon

---

Agree or disagree:
Southern states tried to leave the union in large partbecause they believed that their right to own other human beings was under threat by the northern abolitionists.

---

Agree or disagree:

Southern States owing slaves gave the U.S. Federal government the right to wage ruthless war on them and deny them the right Northern States had exercised in 1776?

---

Deflection.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

I have 4 years of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths as proof.

You however have zero proof for your stance. NONE.

---

Hundreds of thousands of deaths to prove that the Southern States were willing to fight for their independence and to establish a new nation.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths to prove that the Federal government and the Northern States were not going to allow that.

I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings but 99% of Northern soldiers were not fighting to free slaves.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

LMAO.

Then why did the south leave the union and start a war?

Because they thought he would do so.

I notice you still can't answer the question.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

I have 4 years of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths as proof.

You however have zero proof for your stance. NONE.

---

Hundreds of thousands of deaths to prove that the Southern States were willing to fight for their independence and to establish a new nation.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths to prove that the Federal government and the Northern States were not going to allow that.

I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings but 99% of Northern soldiers were not fighting to free slaves.

---

LOL.

Wow. Thank you for proving my original post right.

It was not hundreds of thousands of deaths to prove any of that. It was to continue to own human beings.

None of this hurts my feelings but clearly it hurts your racist feelings that you are so willing to defend people fighting to keep their slaves.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

LMAO.

Then why did the south leave the union and start a war?

Because they thought he would do so.

I notice you still can't answer the question.

---

Voting to leave a political union (that you entered voluntarily) does not start a war.

Unless you think the Founding Fathers started the war with Britain?

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

Which is still different than your original lie... err claim.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

LMAO.

Then why did the south leave the union and start a war?

Because they thought he would do so.

I notice you still can't answer the question.

---

Voting to leave a political union (that you entered voluntarily) does not start a war.

Unless you think the Founding Fathers started the war with Britain?

---

The south fired first. That started the war.

Answer the question or I am done with your deflections.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

Which is still different than your original lie... err claim.

---

I claimed there were zero abolitionists in the north?

Where?

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

The south never would have given up their slaves. The civil war and 100 years of jim crow proves that.

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

You have no proof that the South would not have eventually given up slavery...simply conjecture. Every other country did eventually do away with slavery and many of those countries had far more economic dependence on it.

Jim Crow in many ways were just a copy of Northern race laws and black codes already on the books. And South Africa (who never had large scale slavery) had racial segregation laws in place until 1994 but of course no slavery.

You are probably the first person I have ever heard argue that because the South had segregation laws in 1955...then they would have had slavery in 1955.

[Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted laws similar to the slave codes. These were called Black Codes. Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.]

[A the time of the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in 1870, the following States still restricted the suffrage to whites only: CA, CO, CT, DE, IN, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV, NJ, OH OR, and PA]

[When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor."]

[In almost every Northern State African Americans were denied equal political rights, including the right to vote, the right to attend public schools, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In Oregon, Black people were forbidden to settle, marry, or even sign contracts. Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution banned Black people from settling in the state at all or attending the public schools. Anyone who helped Black people settle in the state or employed Black settlers could be fined. Illinois also banned blacks from settling there. Laws banning the marriage of white and black people were passed in the free states of the former Northwest Territory, including Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio]

[The 1853 Black Law passed in Illinois was considered the harshest of all discriminatory Black Laws passed by Northern states before the Civil War. The bill banned African-American emigration into Illinois. If a free African-American entered Illinois, he or she had to leave within 10 days or face a misdemeanor charge with heavy fines. Subsequent violations led to increased fines. If the fine could not be paid, the law authorized the county sheriff to sell the free African-American's labor to the lowest bidder, essentially turning the violator into a slave. If a fine was imposed, whoever reported the African-American was entitled to receive half of it. The law included harsh penalties for anyone who brought slaves into the state, whether they wanted to free them or not. The law also included penalties to Justices of the Peace who refused prosecute the law.]

---

I have 4 years of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths as proof.

You however have zero proof for your stance. NONE.

---

Hundreds of thousands of deaths to prove that the Southern States were willing to fight for their independence and to establish a new nation.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths to prove that the Federal government and the Northern States were not going to allow that.

I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings but 99% of Northern soldiers were not fighting to free slaves.

---

LOL.

Wow. Thank you for proving my original post right.

It was not hundreds of thousands of deaths to prove any of that. It was to continue to own human beings.

None of this hurts my feelings but clearly it hurts your racist feelings that you are so willing to defend people fighting to keep their slaves.

---

So sad.

You can't argue the point so you start throwing out the racism argument.

Just come out and say you hate White Southerners and are glad the US waged war on them.

Then at least it would be an honest conversation.

---

LOL. Sorry the facts offend you.

Only a racist would try to defend the actions of the south.

I have argued the point and made it very clearly. You deflect and keep going in different directions. The US did not wage war on them. They defended themselves after the south attacked.

So answer the questions I have asked.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

Which is still different than your original lie... err claim.

---

I claimed there were zero abolitionists in the north?

Where?

---

Try to keep up.

1. you said EVERYONE agreed that Lincoln did not have the power to end slavery.

2. DC said there were some that did believe he had the power to do so.

3. Then you deflected and said it was a small number when your original claim was that everyone agreed he did not have the power.

4. I pointed out your false claim.

Answer the questions.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

If it is your argument that the abolitionist movement was weak and inconsequential in the years leading up to the Civil War, why did the southern states who tried to leave the union disagree so strongly with your analysis that they were willing to go to war over it?

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

LMAO.

Then why did the south leave the union and start a war?

Because they thought he would do so.

I notice you still can't answer the question.

---

Voting to leave a political union (that you entered voluntarily) does not start a war.

Unless you think the Founding Fathers started the war with Britain?

---

They absolutely did. They also, unlike the southern states, won.

Again, answer the question:
If it is your argument that the abolitionist movement was weak and inconsequential in the years leading up to the Civil War, why did the southern states who tried to leave the union disagree so strongly with your analysis that they were willing to go to war over it?

And there it is, the spoonfed mental midget just lost. He didn't go all the way to Hitler but he for sure surrender cobra'd his argument and scholarly dignity.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

LMAO.

Then why did the south leave the union and start a war?

Because they thought he would do so.

I notice you still can't answer the question.

---

Voting to leave a political union (that you entered voluntarily) does not start a war.

Unless you think the Founding Fathers started the war with Britain?

---

They absolutely did. They also, unlike the southern states, won.

Again, answer the question:
If it is your argument that the abolitionist movement was weak and inconsequential in the years leading up to the Civil War, why did the southern states who tried to leave the union disagree so strongly with your analysis that they were willing to go to war over it?

---

You are certainly entitled to you opinion.

I disagree.

The Founding Fathers and the Colonies (States) had the right to exercise popular sovereignty. I see Britain as having started the war to prevent that and prosecuting the war to prevent their political independence.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

LMAO.

Then why did the south leave the union and start a war?

Because they thought he would do so.

I notice you still can't answer the question.

---

Voting to leave a political union (that you entered voluntarily) does not start a war.

Unless you think the Founding Fathers started the war with Britain?

---

They absolutely did. They also, unlike the southern states, won.

Again, answer the question:
If it is your argument that the abolitionist movement was weak and inconsequential in the years leading up to the Civil War, why did the southern states who tried to leave the union disagree so strongly with your analysis that they were willing to go to war over it?

---

You are certainly entitled to you opinion.

I disagree.

The Founding Fathers and the Colonies (States) had the right to exercise popular sovereignty. I see Britain as having started the war to prevent that and prosecuting the war to prevent their political independence.

---

Answer the question.
If it is your argument that the abolitionist movement was weak and inconsequential in the years leading up to the Civil War, why did the southern states who tried to leave the union disagree so strongly with your analysis that they were willing to go to war over it?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

If it is your argument that the abolitionist movement was weak and inconsequential in the years leading up to the Civil War, why did the southern states who tried to leave the union disagree so strongly with your analysis that they were willing to go to war over it?

---

I don't know how much they even thought war was necessary to secure their independence.

I think many were outright shocked that the Northern States would invade them.

[Indeed, resigned Sen. James Chestnut, Jr. of South Carolina his wife, Mary, would write one of the conflict's most famous diaries averred that "a lady's thimble" would be enough to "hold all the blood that will be shed" as a result of secession.]

"The bright fame of devotion to a perpetual Union, kindled in the North by the words and acts of men like Webster & Gay, had so little penetrated the South that hardly anyone there expected the North to fight for the Union, & everyone felt cheated when it did"
-Morison

Indeed it had been the Northeastern States for most of the 1800s threating to leave the Union. Over the War of 1812, that hurt their commerce with Britain, and over Texas coming into the Union.

[for the annexation of Texas evoked remonstances, accompanied by threats of a dissolution of the Union from the Northeastern States. The Legislature of Massachusetts, in 1844, adopted a resolution declaring on behalf of the State, that "The commonwealth of Massachusetts, faithfully to the compact between the people of the US, according to the plain meaning and intent in which it was understood by them, sincerely anxious for its preservation; but that it is determined, as it doubts not the other States are, to submit to undelegated powers in no body of men on this earth"; and that "the project of the annexation of Texas unless arrested on the threshold, shall compel us to go out of the Union."]

"If a vote had been taken in 1861, in the Northern states alone, on the abstract constitutional question at issue, the President's [Lincoln] view would in all probability have been defeated."

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

"From generation to generation they had grown up indoctrinated with the gospel, or heresy, of State Sovereignty, and it was just as much part of their moral & intellectual being as was clanship of the Scotch highlanders."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres AHA)

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

Which is still different than your original lie... err claim.

---

I claimed there were zero abolitionists in the north?

Where?

---

Try to keep up.

1. you said EVERYONE agreed that Lincoln did not have the power to end slavery.

---

Then I should have been more clear and said; the vast majority of the populace, the two political parties, the leadership of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the non-abolitionist press (which was the majority of the press), the State legislatures in both the North and South, and anyone other than a small faction of the abolitionists who themselves were a fraction of the populace in the North.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

If it is your argument that the abolitionist movement was weak and inconsequential in the years leading up to the Civil War, why did the southern states who tried to leave the union disagree so strongly with your analysis that they were willing to go to war over it?

---

I don't know how much they even thought war was necessary to secure their independence.

I think many were outright shocked that the Northern States would invade them.

[Indeed, resigned Sen. James Chestnut, Jr. of South Carolina his wife, Mary, would write one of the conflict's most famous diaries averred that "a lady's thimble" would be enough to "hold all the blood that will be shed" as a result of secession.]

"The bright fame of devotion to a perpetual Union, kindled in the North by the words and acts of men like Webster & Gay, had so little penetrated the South that hardly anyone there expected the North to fight for the Union, & everyone felt cheated when it did"
-Morison

Indeed it had been the Northeastern States for most of the 1800s threating to leave the Union. Over the War of 1812, that hurt their commerce with Britain, and over Texas coming into the Union.

[for the annexation of Texas evoked remonstances, accompanied by threats of a dissolution of the Union from the Northeastern States. The Legislature of Massachusetts, in 1844, adopted a resolution declaring on behalf of the State, that "The commonwealth of Massachusetts, faithfully to the compact between the people of the US, according to the plain meaning and intent in which it was understood by them, sincerely anxious for its preservation; but that it is determined, as it doubts not the other States are, to submit to undelegated powers in no body of men on this earth"; and that "the project of the annexation of Texas unless arrested on the threshold, shall compel us to go out of the Union."]

"If a vote had been taken in 1861, in the Northern states alone, on the abstract constitutional question at issue, the President's [Lincoln] view would in all probability have been defeated."

"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle

"From generation to generation they had grown up indoctrinated with the gospel, or heresy, of State Sovereignty, and it was just as much part of their moral & intellectual being as was clanship of the Scotch highlanders."
-C.F. Adams Jr. (Pres AHA)

---

Again, answer the question.
If it is your argument that the abolitionist movement was weak and inconsequential in the years leading up to the Civil War, why did the southern states who tried to leave the union disagree so strongly with your analysis that they were willing to go to war over it?

They clearly believed that slavery was under grave threat. How could they have believed this if, as you have feebly argued, the abolitionist movement was so inconsequential that the north was not going to force the south to give up slavery?

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

LMAO.

Then why did the south leave the union and start a war?

Because they thought he would do so.

I notice you still can't answer the question.

---

Voting to leave a political union (that you entered voluntarily) does not start a war.

Unless you think the Founding Fathers started the war with Britain?

---

The south fired first. That started the war.

Answer the question or I am done with your deflections.

---

Wrong again,

[The first shots of the War, were actually fired at civilians at Fort Pickens, Pensacola. Union troops under Lt. Slemmer fired on a group of local civilians, after leaving Fort Barrancas, which could be viewed as an invasion.
The entire reason the forts became such a major issue is because of Major Anderson's actions at Ft. Moultrie in South Carolina. He destroyed the state's defenses so other States were afraid of similar actions.
"Major Anderson committed an act of hostility. When he unlawfully dismantled Ft. Moultrie, when he burned the carriages & spiked the guns bearing upon Ft. Sumter, he put Carolina in the attitude of an enemy of the US."]

"There is no pretense of insurrection against the laws of any State; but there has been a withdrawal from this Federal Union of 6 of the southern States...This measure by the government points to this lamentable state of affairs, and proposes its correction by force of arms."
-Senator Burnett 2/26/1861

"Maryland's legislature declared on May 10th, 1861 that the current Federal actions were unconstitutional. That it was Lincoln's illegal coercion through trying to hold on to military Forts inside South Carolina that caused the war."

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the CSA immediately treated all four as quasi-members. Although all had been fundamentally Unionist in sentiment, the hostility of all to coercion was overwhelming."
-Prof Allan Nevins

"To hold Fort Sumter and the other fortifications was to Lincoln a priority but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes

"There being, as it is admitted on every hand, no power to coerce a State, I ask what is the use of a garrison within a State where it needs no defense? The answer from every candid mind must be, there is none."
-Jeff Davis, speech to the Senate 1/10/1861

Supreme Court: "Congress cannot declare war against a State or any number of States, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a State."
-Dunning

"The first 90 years our government rested on consent & that that was the only rightful basis on which any gov't could rest, the late war has practically demonstrated that our government rests upon force"- Lysander Spooner

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

Which is still different than your original lie... err claim.

---

I claimed there were zero abolitionists in the north?

Where?

---

Try to keep up.

1. you said EVERYONE agreed that Lincoln did not have the power to end slavery.

---

Then I should have been more clear and said; the vast majority of the populace, the two political parties, the leadership of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the non-abolitionist press (which was the majority of the press), the State legislatures in both the North and South, and anyone other than a small faction of the abolitionists who themselves were a fraction of the populace in the North.

---

So, once more, why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings like one would own a cow or pig was under such a threat that they needed to leave the union to protect that right?

Were they just stupid?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

Which is still different than your original lie... err claim.

---

I claimed there were zero abolitionists in the north?

Where?

---

Try to keep up.

1. you said EVERYONE agreed that Lincoln did not have the power to end slavery.

---

Then I should have been more clear and said; the vast majority of the populace, the two political parties, the leadership of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the non-abolitionist press (which was the majority of the press), the State legislatures in both the North and South, and anyone other than a small faction of the abolitionists who themselves were a fraction of the populace in the North.

---

So, once more, why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings like one would own a cow or pig was under such a threat that they needed to leave the union to protect that right?

Were they just stupid?

---

You are attempting to use emotional charged language...well ok that is your right.

Certainly the Slave holding class of the South saw nothing wrong with owing slaves. Or at least most did not.

And most in the North did not have a problem with slavery existing where did nor did they believe they had a right to interfere with the practice Constitutionally in the States were it currently existed.

"As for slavery...I would have been willing to give that up for recognition of the other great principle (states rights)." -A. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy

"The Northwest (Midwest) was as agricultural as the South; the Republicans were at every opportunity vigorous in disclaiming abolitionist tendencies and were willing to leave slavery alone where it was...the problem of why these sections went to war lies deeper."
-Prof Craven

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

Which is still different than your original lie... err claim.

---

I claimed there were zero abolitionists in the north?

Where?

---

Try to keep up.

1. you said EVERYONE agreed that Lincoln did not have the power to end slavery.

---

Then I should have been more clear and said; the vast majority of the populace, the two political parties, the leadership of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the non-abolitionist press (which was the majority of the press), the State legislatures in both the North and South, and anyone other than a small faction of the abolitionists who themselves were a fraction of the populace in the North.

---

So, once more, why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings like one would own a cow or pig was under such a threat that they needed to leave the union to protect that right?

Were they just stupid?

---

You are attempting to use emotional charged language...well ok that is your right.

Certainly the Slave holding class of the South saw nothing wrong with owing slaves. Or at least most did not.

And most in the North did not have a problem with slavery existing where did nor did they believe they had a right to interfere with the practice Constitutionally in the States were it currently existed.

"As for slavery...I would have been willing to give that up for recognition of the other great principle (states rights)." -A. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy

---

I am not attempting to use "emotional charged language." I am describing, in concrete terms, what slavery was: the ownership as property of one human being by another human being. If you want to add emotion to that accurate description, that is your right.

Answer the question. It isn't a difficult question to understand. Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other people was under such a grave threat?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Big-O!-Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The Civil War was a result of the racist slave owners in the south being afraid that Lincoln was going to end slavery. So they tried to leave the Union and fired the first shots starting the war. Then Lincoln and the north fought back, won and ended slavery.

And now people want to defend the south in attempts to rewrite history, defend their racist ancestors, defend their racist state's actions, etc.

People can make all the claims they want but at the end of it all the war was about slavery and needed to be fought because the south was not going to just give up slavery like other countries had done or would do.

---

Lulz, i wish i could live my life so simply and wrapped in a bow tie. It's cute in a elementary sort of way. Consumer friendly history like bite sized sushi. No wonder we are where we are

---

Name one thing wrong with my post.

All of it is historical FACT.

---

---

I did not imply that the union or Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Read my original post again. It clearly says the South THOUGHT he was going to do that.

---

I think you overestimate how many though that. I mean why would they? Lincoln went out and said he supported slavery where it was. Most felt it was a Constitutional right of the States. And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that passed Congress that would have further gone above and beyond and protected slavery.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this act Lincoln hoped to show the South that he would never move to abolish slavery". With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office. Article II barred Congress from abolishing slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction within a slave state. Article III protected slavery in the District of Columbia. Article IV forbade Congress from prohibiting the transport of slaves from one state to another. Article V provided that the federal government would pay full compensation to slaveholders for slaves that they had not been able to recover because of the help of abolitionists. The sixth amendment blocked all the preceding amendments from being altered and denied Congress the right to ever abolish slavery in states where it existed.]

"We think slavery a great wrong, while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists." Abraham Lincoln

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, ..that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone." -Abraham Lincoln

---

I over estimate how they thought?

True or false... The south seceded when Lincoln was elected?

That is all the proof needed for what they thought he was going to do.

---

Such terrible logic.

Lincoln had no power to end slavery. And no desire to do so.

And everyone North and South agreed he had no Constitutional power to do so.

---

No, everyone did not agree. In fact, there was a split among abolitionists who disagreed

---

And those abolitionists did not even constitute 10% of the Northern populace. So we are talking 5% who would have agreed? Less?

A tiny fraction of the national voting populace.

---

Which is still different than your original lie... err claim.

---

I claimed there were zero abolitionists in the north?

Where?

---

Try to keep up.

1. you said EVERYONE agreed that Lincoln did not have the power to end slavery.

---

Then I should have been more clear and said; the vast majority of the populace, the two political parties, the leadership of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the non-abolitionist press (which was the majority of the press), the State legislatures in both the North and South, and anyone other than a small faction of the abolitionists who themselves were a fraction of the populace in the North.

---

So, once more, why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings like one would own a cow or pig was under such a threat that they needed to leave the union to protect that right?

Were they just stupid?

---

You are attempting to use emotional charged language...well ok that is your right.

Certainly the Slave holding class of the South saw nothing wrong with owing slaves. Or at least most did not.

And most in the North did not have a problem with slavery existing where did nor did they believe they had a right to interfere with the practice Constitutionally in the States were it currently existed.

"As for slavery...I would have been willing to give that up for recognition of the other great principle (states rights)." -A. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy

---

I am not attempting to use "emotional charged language." I am describing, in concrete terms, what slavery was: the ownership as property of one human being by another human being. If you want to add emotion to that accurate description, that is your right.

Answer the question. It isn't a difficult question to understand. Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other people was under such a grave threat?

---

That is neutral language...good

You can make your arguments without the poetic language.

And of course if would not be inaccurate to say that there was a growing number of people in the South by 1861 were beginning to see the massive moral implications of slavery.

"Many things connected with it (slavery) did not meet my approval but excited my disgust, abhorrence, and detestation." Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens