Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Answer the question: 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:

---

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

---

Answer the question: Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other people was under such a grave threat?

---

The fact you keep barking for me to answer your question is the reason I won't be doing so. Take a break for a few minutes until you learn how to have a calm rational discussion on the internet.

But in the end no particular view of slavery fundamentally matters when discussing the legality and Constitutionality of voluntary political secession.

The North was fundamentally not abolitionist in 1861 and the South was certainly not abolitionist in 1861...this is well established.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Answer the question: Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other people was under such a grave threat?

---

The fact you keep barking for me to answer your question is the reason I won't be doing so. Take a break for a few minutes until you learn how to have a calm rational discussion on the internet.

But in the end no particular view of slavery fundamentally matters when discussing the legality and Constitutionality of voluntary political secession.

The North was fundamentally not abolitionist in 1861 and the South was certainly not abolitionist in 1861...this is well established.

---

You did not decide not to answer because I repeated the question, I repeated the question because you decided not to answer it. It is likely that the reason you refuse to answer it is that you don't really want to lie and a truthful answer will demonstrate that the decision of the southern states to leave the union was taken primarily so that they could continue to protect their right to own other human beings in the same way that one might own a farm animal. (Sorry if that truth offends you). Answer the question. Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings was under threat?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Answer the question: Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other people was under such a grave threat?

---

The fact you keep barking for me to answer your question is the reason I won't be doing so. Take a break for a few minutes until you learn how to have a calm rational discussion on the internet.

But in the end no particular view of slavery fundamentally matters when discussing the legality and Constitutionality of voluntary political secession.

The North was fundamentally not abolitionist in 1861 and the South was certainly not abolitionist in 1861...this is well established.

---

You did not decide not to answer because I repeated the question, I repeated the question because you decided not to answer it. It is likely that the reason you refuse to answer it is that you don't really want to lie and a truthful answer will demonstrate that the decision of the southern states to leave the union was taken primarily so that they could continue to protect their right to own other human beings in the same way that one might own a farm animal. (Sorry if that truth offends you). Answer the question. Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings was under threat?

---

Doesn't hurt or offended me at all.

But it shows a lot that you need cows and pigs language to make your point...however weak it might be.

Take a break kid and cool off.

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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Answer the question: Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other people was under such a grave threat?

---

The fact you keep barking for me to answer your question is the reason I won't be doing so. Take a break for a few minutes until you learn how to have a calm rational discussion on the internet.

But in the end no particular view of slavery fundamentally matters when discussing the legality and Constitutionality of voluntary political secession.

The North was fundamentally not abolitionist in 1861 and the South was certainly not abolitionist in 1861...this is well established.

---

You did not decide not to answer because I repeated the question, I repeated the question because you decided not to answer it. It is likely that the reason you refuse to answer it is that you don't really want to lie and a truthful answer will demonstrate that the decision of the southern states to leave the union was taken primarily so that they could continue to protect their right to own other human beings in the same way that one might own a farm animal. (Sorry if that truth offends you). Answer the question. Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings was under threat?

---

Doesn't hurt or offended me at all.

But it shows a lot that you need cows and pigs language to make your point...however weak it might be.

Take a break kid and cool off.

---

It shows a lot, and none of it particularly good, that you find the truth that slavery, that it was owning humans as though they were animals, "weak."

Answer the question:
Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings was under threat?
Let's make it easier. There are three options:

1. They wrongly believed that their right to own other humans as though they were farm animals was under real threat.
2. They accurately believed that their right to own other humans as through they were farm animals was under real threat.
3. They didn't actually believe their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals was under real threat and they decided to leave the union without any concern for their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals.

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Sorry but that is a revisionist history to call that the start of the war.

South fired first in the battle of Fort Sumter.

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Sorry but that is a revisionist history to call that the start of the war.

South fired first in the battle of Fort Sumter.

---

You obviously did not bother to read.

[The first shots of the War, were actually fired at civilians at Fort Pickens, Pensacola. Union troops under Lt. Slemmer who 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."]

Then there was the firing in response on the Star of the North.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/star-of-the-west-is-fired-upon

You would only technically be correct in the the Ft. Sumter firing was the excuse Lincoln was waiting for to call up troops. Those troops trying to invade through Virginia without permission started the War.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

Answer the question:
Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings was under threat?
Let's make it easier. There are three options:

1. They wrongly believed that their right to own other humans as though they were farm animals was under real threat.
2. They accurately believed that their right to own other humans as through they were farm animals was under real threat.
3. They didn't actually believe their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals was under real threat and they decided to leave the union without any concern for their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

You can not invade what is already yours.

The south started the war.

I am done with you and your racist revisionist history trying to defend the actions of slave owners claiming on one hand that virtually no one in the north wanted to abolish slavery and then on the other hand claiming the south chose to leave because of the threat of them losing their right to own other people.

In your view the individual people that say they have voted to leave the US and create their own state within the US are a separate country. But I bet you support the government when they tell them no and that the laws still apply to them.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Sorry but that is a revisionist history to call that the start of the war.

South fired first in the battle of Fort Sumter.

---

You obviously did not bother to read.

[The first shots of the War, were actually fired at civilians at Fort Pickens, Pensacola. Union troops under Lt. Slemmer who 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."]

Then there was the firing in response on the Star of the North.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/star-of-the-west-is-fired-upon

You would only technically be correct in the the Ft. Sumter firing was the excuse Lincoln was waiting for to call up troops. Those troops trying to invade through Virginia without permission started the War.

---

LOL. I read it and explained it. You cannot invade what is already yours.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

You can not invade what is already yours.

The south started the war.

I am done with you and your racist revisionist history trying to defend the actions of slave owners claiming on one hand that virtually no one in the north wanted to abolish slavery and then on the other hand claiming the south chose to leave because of the threat of them losing their right to own other people.

In your view the individual people that say they have voted to leave the US and create their own state within the US are a separate country. But I bet you support the government when they tell them no and that the laws still apply to them.

---

The States belong to the Federal Government? Where is that found in the Constitution?

Would the Founding Fathers who just fought a long bloody secessionist war against Great Britain have ever signed such a document?


"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty..."
-Prof Dunning

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State. This [coercion] would degrade us to the basest despotism under which man could live; the despotism of a many-headed monster, without the sensibility or regardful consideration which might belong to a hereditary king."
-Jeff Davis, 1/10/1861

"If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the British Empire of 3 millions of subjects in 1776, it was not seen why it would not justify the secession of 9 millions of Southerners from the Union in 1861."
~ New York Tribune

[There was no provision in U.S. Constitution which prohibits a State from seceding from the union made clear by proposal at 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant new federal government specific power to suppress a seceding state. "Today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-Charles F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)]

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. No Tyranny
"like Buchanan, Lincoln announced an intention to preserve the status quo till time should soothe excited passions, one feature of the former President's theory was conspicuously absent from the inaugural address: the "right to coerce a state" was not even alluded to."]
-William Dunning

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

I am done with you and your racist revisionist history

---

bwahahahahah

You just throw out the word "racist" whenever you can't back up you statements with facts and your feelings get hurt huh?

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

I am done with you and your racist revisionist history

---

bwahahahahah

You just throw out the word "racist" whenever you can't back up you statements with facts and your feelings get hurt huh?

---

Answer the question:
Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings was under threat?
Let's make it easier. There are three options:

1. They wrongly believed that their right to own other humans as though they were farm animals was under real threat.
2. They accurately believed that their right to own other humans as through they were farm animals was under real threat.
3. They didn't actually believe their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals was under real threat and they decided to leave the union without any concern for their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

I am done with you and your racist revisionist history

---

bwahahahahah

You just throw out the word "racist" whenever you can't back up you statements with facts and your feelings get hurt huh?

---

Answer the question:
Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings was under threat?
Let's make it easier. There are three options:

1. They wrongly believed that their right to own other humans as though they were farm animals was under real threat.
2. They accurately believed that their right to own other humans as through they were farm animals was under real threat.
3. They didn't actually believe their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals was under real threat and they decided to leave the union without any concern for their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals.

---

Answer the question:

You think these guys wanted to interfere in slavery were it was?

"I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so." -Abraham Lincoln

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can hardly believe that the South and North can ever live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Gen. Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward on the issue at once.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

I am done with you and your racist revisionist history

---

bwahahahahah

You just throw out the word "racist" whenever you can't back up you statements with facts and your feelings get hurt huh?

---

Answer the question:
Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings was under threat?
Let's make it easier. There are three options:

1. They wrongly believed that their right to own other humans as though they were farm animals was under real threat.
2. They accurately believed that their right to own other humans as through they were farm animals was under real threat.
3. They didn't actually believe their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals was under real threat and they decided to leave the union without any concern for their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals.

---

Answer the question:

You think these guys wanted to interfere in slavery were it was?

"I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so." -Abraham Lincoln

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can hardly believe that the South and North can ever live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Gen. Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward on the issue at once.]

---

You first:
Answer the question:
Why did the southern states believe that their right to own other human beings was under threat?
Let's make it easier. There are three options:

1. They wrongly believed that their right to own other humans as though they were farm animals was under real threat.
2. They accurately believed that their right to own other humans as through they were farm animals was under real threat.
3. They didn't actually believe their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals was under real threat and they decided to leave the union without any concern for their right to own other human beings as though they were farm animals.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

You can not invade what is already yours.

The south started the war.

I am done with you and your racist revisionist history trying to defend the actions of slave owners claiming on one hand that virtually no one in the north wanted to abolish slavery and then on the other hand claiming the south chose to leave because of the threat of them losing their right to own other people.

In your view the individual people that say they have voted to leave the US and create their own state within the US are a separate country. But I bet you support the government when they tell them no and that the laws still apply to them.

---

The States belong to the Federal Government? Where is that found in the Constitution?

Would the Founding Fathers who just fought a long bloody secessionist war against Great Britain have ever signed such a document?


"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty..."
-Prof Dunning

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State. This [coercion] would degrade us to the basest despotism under which man could live; the despotism of a many-headed monster, without the sensibility or regardful consideration which might belong to a hereditary king."
-Jeff Davis, 1/10/1861

"If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the British Empire of 3 millions of subjects in 1776, it was not seen why it would not justify the secession of 9 millions of Southerners from the Union in 1861."
~ New York Tribune

[There was no provision in U.S. Constitution which prohibits a State from seceding from the union made clear by proposal at 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant new federal government specific power to suppress a seceding state. "Today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-Charles F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)]

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. No Tyranny
"like Buchanan, Lincoln announced an intention to preserve the status quo till time should soothe excited passions, one feature of the former President's theory was conspicuously absent from the inaugural address: the "right to coerce a state" was not even alluded to."]
-William Dunning

---

Pretty much in the entire thing when they sign and join and are now a part of the UNITED STATES of America.

Can't invade what you already own.

Enough with the quotes. They don't prove anything other than you find a person who agrees with you but is also wrong.

The south started the war.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

I am done with you and your racist revisionist history

---

bwahahahahah

You just throw out the word "racist" whenever you can't back up you statements with facts and your feelings get hurt huh?

---

I use that word because only a racist would try to defend the actions of racist slaveowners trying to fight to keep their slaves.

There is no other way to describe that attempted justification.

You are defending slavery and trying to say the slave owners were in the right for fighting to keep their slaves.

Clearly you are the only one hurt as you can't leave it alone and stop defending the racist slave owners for starting a war to keep owning other human beings.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

You can not invade what is already yours.

The south started the war.

I am done with you and your racist revisionist history trying to defend the actions of slave owners claiming on one hand that virtually no one in the north wanted to abolish slavery and then on the other hand claiming the south chose to leave because of the threat of them losing their right to own other people.

In your view the individual people that say they have voted to leave the US and create their own state within the US are a separate country. But I bet you support the government when they tell them no and that the laws still apply to them.

---

The States belong to the Federal Government? Where is that found in the Constitution?

Would the Founding Fathers who just fought a long bloody secessionist war against Great Britain have ever signed such a document?


"But if the right of a state as an organized community to sever its political relations with other communities does not exist, there can be no claim of sovereignty for the state. For if political sovereignty means anything, it includes the attribute of... self-determination as to its status in respect to other sovereignties. Limitation in this attribute is fatal to the conception of sovereignty..."
-Prof Dunning

"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State. This [coercion] would degrade us to the basest despotism under which man could live; the despotism of a many-headed monster, without the sensibility or regardful consideration which might belong to a hereditary king."
-Jeff Davis, 1/10/1861

"If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the British Empire of 3 millions of subjects in 1776, it was not seen why it would not justify the secession of 9 millions of Southerners from the Union in 1861."
~ New York Tribune

[There was no provision in U.S. Constitution which prohibits a State from seceding from the union made clear by proposal at 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant new federal government specific power to suppress a seceding state. "Today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-Charles F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)]

[There is no moral or ethical right to coerce a State that seeks to "alter or abolish" a supposed voluntary political association with other States. It's called self-government & the principle was clearly expressed in the original Declaration of Independence in 1776. No Tyranny
"like Buchanan, Lincoln announced an intention to preserve the status quo till time should soothe excited passions, one feature of the former President's theory was conspicuously absent from the inaugural address: the "right to coerce a state" was not even alluded to."]
-William Dunning

---

Pretty much in the entire thing when they sign and join and are now a part of the UNITED STATES of America.

Can't invade what you already own.

Enough with the quotes. They don't prove anything other than you find a person who agrees with you but is also wrong.

The south started the war.

---

One could argue, though it is not an overly compelling argument, that the north started the war because it refused to let the south leave the union.

The south, however, sought to leave the union so that it could protect the right of its citizens to own other human beings in the same manner that one might own livestock. There is no legitimate argument against this fact.

UTExan said:

---

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.

---

It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.

Hmm, did George Floyd cause his death by passing out fake $20s and taking drugs then fighting with police who arrested him or did the police start the "war" by physically grabbing Floyd at the beginning of his arrest?

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr 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.

---

And yet the south felt the need to start a war over this small population.

---

Voting to leave a political Union does not start a war.

Lincoln deciding to call up 75,000 soldiers and invade does start a war.

---

I am done with you and your racist revisionist history

---

bwahahahahah

You just throw out the word "racist" whenever you can't back up you statements with facts and your feelings get hurt huh?

---

I use that word because only a racist would try to defend the actions of racist slaveowners trying to fight to keep their slaves.

---

This is where we get back to a circular argument.

I can post you quote after quote from all vast majority of North political leaders, and quote after quote from the Republican party platforms, and Supreme Court precedents, and Congressional statements/resolutions saying that they were not attempting to interfere in slavery.

The South had more security keeping their slaves by staying inside the Union than outside it.

At the beginning of the War the Republican dominated Congress passed the Crittenden-Johnson resolutions. Known as the "War aims" resolution. That declared unanimously, "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists ...in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union"

"No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union."
-Gen. John B. Gordon, CSA

"The continuation of African Slavery sinks into utter insignificance compared to the preservation of our own liberty. We are not fighting for slavery, but for our independence"
-Richmond Daily Dispatch, Virginia February 8th, 1865

"The people of the North do not want, nor will they want, to interfere with the institution of slavery. But they will refuse to give it protection unless the South shall return soon to their allegiance."
- Gen. Grant 4/19/1861

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out any emancipation. Lincoln's interest and policy goal was the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure only that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the new Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward argued with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been just as complicit in the slave trade.]

"We are for...Not interfering with slavery where it is, but shaping the policy of the country so as to prevent its expansion & leaving it as the Constitution has left it, for the States where it exists, to manage it as shall seem to them best."
-Sen. Trumbull (R-IL), 13th amendment author 8/7/1858

"I would colonize them. We colonize Indians in our Western frontier; why can't we colonize the negro as well as the Indian?"
-Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL), 13th Amendment Author 8//7/1858

"[The negro is] a foreign & feeble element like the Indians, incapable of assimilation...a pitiful exotic unwisely & unnecessarily transplanted into our fields, & which it is unprofitable to cultivate at the cost of the desolation of the native vineyard."
-William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of War

[On May 26, 1862, Union Maj. Gen. David Hunter emancipated slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, declaring all "persons ... heretofore held as slaves ... forever free". Lincoln, embarrassed by the order, rescinded Hunter's declaration, and canceled the emancipation.]

"I wish to know why a difference should be made between a free negro & one who was formerly a slave. If you want to keep them out, I say keep them all out. I am opposed to any such distinction."
-Gen. Henry Halleck, General in Chief of the Armies of the United States 1862-1864

"I really hope that Maryland may not secede...If no slave States remain in the Union, the North may over time become anti-slavery, & I fear, in the course of the war will declare for emancipation & thus add the horrors of a servile war to that of a civil war."
-Gen. Halleck, General in Chief of the Armies of the United States, 4/30/1861

"I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to my men to count negros as their equals. Let us capture negros, of course, and use them to the best advantage as labor." -Gen. William T Sherman

"I would not if I could abolish or modify slavery. I don't know that I would materially change the actual political relation of master and slave. Negroes in the great numbers that exist here must of necessity be slaves."
-Gen. Sherman 12/23/1859

"Throughout the entirety of the war I never heard slavery mentioned as an issue. The Union it was the Union we were fighting for!"
-Gen. Custer letter to Judge Beacon

"We must hurt the rebels in every way possible. Shoot them with shot & shells and minie balls & and damn them, take their n***rs and shoot them with their n****rs if we must"
-General John A. Logan 1863

"I am willing to subjugate, burn & I almost said exterminate, rather than not put down this rebellion, I am in favor of taking as spoils all negroes. I have no conscientious scruples concerning slavery at all; but the South has violated its contract!"
-Gen Logan 1864

"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these men of the South and will convince them that...for every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

[Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug."
He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions.] -Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay

[Lincoln had always been a national Whig. His policies were those in favor of a central banking system, which he championed during his first term in the Illinois legislature. The Bank of the United States which Andrew Jackson opposed was similar to our present day Federal Reserve System. Lincoln opposed resolutions in the Illinois legislature supporting President Andrew Jackson, who had vetoed the National Bank. Lincoln also favored higher tariffs, a strongly centralized government and greater investment in internal improvements. Lincoln himself had a direct personal reason to support such policies, since he derived a significant portion of his income from serving as attorney for the railroad interests. Opposition to slavery had never been a corner stone of his career or of seeming great interest in his personal life. After all he had been born and raised in his youngest years in the slave holding state of Kentucky.]

Lincoln of course was married to a woman from a slave owing family and had spent his earliest years in Kentucky. [Mary Todd, The wife of President Lincoln, had been raised in a slave owing family. Although Mr. Todd rejected the idea of slavery on principle, he owned one slave for every member of the family. Mary was especially fond of the slave Mammy Sally. Her father supported the KY Colonization Society in its efforts to send freed slaves to Liberia. He freely discussed his dislike of slave-selling and opposed efforts to open KY slave markets to out-of-state imports. He believed slavery prevented Lexington and Kentucky from growing commercially. Regardless, his lifestyle contradicted his beliefs: he was a slaveholder in an relatively anti-slavery family in a slave state.] The Life Of Mary Todd Lincoln, Kimberly J. Largent

"Altho' Mr Lincoln is, or was a Fremont man, you must not include him with so many of those, who belong to that party, an Abolitionist. In principle he is far from it. All he desires is, that slavery, shall not be extended, let it remain, where it is"
-Mary Todd Lincoln

"Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his effort was to save the Union, with slavery secure if he could save it that way...The South stood for the principle of the sovereignty of the States. The North stood for the principle of the supremacy of the Union."
-President Coolidge, 5/30/24

"...we do not claim the right to touch (slavery) 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

"I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time..." -Abraham Lincoln

"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

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, and still, I hope, not an enemy, 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.

"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"Lincoln's experiences with slavery on his journeys to New Orleans in '28 & '31 do not seem to have made an impression vivid enough to change his outlook or conduct. Always privately compassionate, in his public career & legal practice he never made himself the advocate of unpopular reform movements." -Richard Hofstadler

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed."
- Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia."
-Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship."
- Abraham Lincoln

I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so." -Abraham Lincoln

[Senator Benjamin Wade insulted President Lincoln in a September 1861 letter, he privately wrote that Lincoln's views on slavery "could only come of one born of poor white trash and educated in a slave State."]

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, lots of words, little substance.
It is an undisputable fact that the south saw leaving the union as necessary to preserve the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock. No number of words or quotes can alter that truth.

---

If the words of the leading Politicians, Presidents and Generals of the North have no substance than I don't know how to continue with any rational discussion.

---

For you to continue a rational discussion, you would have to have started a rational discussion. There has been precious little evidence of the latter.

In answering the question of why the south tried to leave the union and whether they were justified in doing so, the words of southern politicians, not selectively curated words of northern politicians, hold sway. By their own words in carefully considered documents, they tried, and failed, to leave the union because they were convinced that if they stayed in the union the right to own other human beings in the same manner that one owns livestock would inevitably be taken away.

Wangchung said:

---

It's odd to see one side provide direct quotes from the men in charge at the time and be answered with middle school level historical talking points, and then attempts to say any discussion that is short of full agreement is signs that person is a racist. "You don't agree with what my junior high gym coach taught me in history?!? YOURE RACIST!"

BID

---

I haven't called anyone racist in this discussion, and my junior high gym coach didn't teach me anything other than junior high gym, so it is odd to see you make that false characterization.

Again, the south tried to leave the union because they believed that there was a real and present threat to the right to own other human beings in the same way that people own livestock. In discussing why the south tried to leave and whether they were justified in doing so, that cannot legitimately downplayed or ignored.