It's so easy to claim 'The North invaded' or 'The South started the war'.

The Slavery issue, along with regional disputes, dates back to before the Revolutionary War. That's part of why the British did not expect the rebellion to succeed.

Boston rising up, they expected. Virginia and Georgia joining the rebellion, much less supplying good officers, they did not.

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

A. Anti-slavery politicians did not seek abolition. They sought an end to the expansion of slavery. They did not believe they could constitutionally abolish. In the end, they needed a constitutional amendment (13th). The abolitionists had limited political influence in 1860.
B. Lincoln was the only anti-slavery presidential nominee in 1870, out of 4. And he did not seek abolition. He even reversed some emancipations by the army in the early months of the war for fear the border states might join the south.
C. The South started the Civil War by shooting at federal forces (kinda like Minneapolis traitors attacking ICE). And this was because they lost the 1860 election and refused to accept the results of the electorate (like the fascists' reaction to Trump each time). The crazy thing is that they guaranteed they would lose when they ran 2 candidates in 1860 so the votes would be split.
Of course Gone With the Wind is fiction, with gross distortions of history. But the romanticization of the antebellum south was not isolated. It permeated much of pop culture, like woke & DEI trash does today, and had intellectual support as well, like woke today.
D. The Union Army acted like most armies in most wars throughout human history, including the Confederates. It is often ugly and brutal. That's one reason it's accurately said that "War is hell" (Sherman). But it was not a war that the North started.

---

A. simply not true...not in the slightest
B. Lincoln was long dead in 1870
C. Feds invaded the South. Not the other way around. Period.
D. North began the war....a war of political and economic domination. They could have avoided a war the same way Great Britain did. By paying compensation for lost investment.

---

The north did not invade the south as it is impossible for a country to invade themselves.

The south fired the first shots thus starting the war.

---

Going full circle still again.

The South no more started the Civil War than Poland attacked nazi Germany starting WW2.

It always comes down to who wins the war.

The Allies won WW2 so their version of events took hold.

The North won the Civil War so their version of events became gospel.


( And for what it's worth the Patriots won their War of Independence so their version of events has forever been taught in public schools. And it is as biased and slanted as any aspect of American history ).

---

Lol. If you only read history written from one country then yes you only get that slant.

But the American revolution has plenty of scholars that have researched it and written about it.

And guess what? Not a single one says that England invaded the colonies.

Just as no serious scholar of the civil war (from any country) claims the US invaded the US or that the north started the war.

Just the same as no serious scholar says the war was about anything other than slavery.

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

A. Anti-slavery politicians did not seek abolition. They sought an end to the expansion of slavery. They did not believe they could constitutionally abolish. In the end, they needed a constitutional amendment (13th). The abolitionists had limited political influence in 1860.
B. Lincoln was the only anti-slavery presidential nominee in 1870, out of 4. And he did not seek abolition. He even reversed some emancipations by the army in the early months of the war for fear the border states might join the south.
C. The South started the Civil War by shooting at federal forces (kinda like Minneapolis traitors attacking ICE). And this was because they lost the 1860 election and refused to accept the results of the electorate (like the fascists' reaction to Trump each time). The crazy thing is that they guaranteed they would lose when they ran 2 candidates in 1860 so the votes would be split.
Of course Gone With the Wind is fiction, with gross distortions of history. But the romanticization of the antebellum south was not isolated. It permeated much of pop culture, like woke & DEI trash does today, and had intellectual support as well, like woke today.
D. The Union Army acted like most armies in most wars throughout human history, including the Confederates. It is often ugly and brutal. That's one reason it's accurately said that "War is hell" (Sherman). But it was not a war that the North started.

---

A. simply not true...not in the slightest
B. Lincoln was long dead in 1870
C. Feds invaded the South. Not the other way around. Period.
D. North began the war....a war of political and economic domination. They could have avoided a war the same way Great Britain did. By paying compensation for lost investment.

---

The north did not invade the south as it is impossible for a country to invade themselves.

The south fired the first shots thus starting the war.

---

Going full circle still again.

The South no more started the Civil War than Poland attacked nazi Germany starting WW2.

It always comes down to who wins the war.

The Allies won WW2 so their version of events took hold.

The North won the Civil War so their version of events became gospel.


( And for what it's worth the Patriots won their War of Independence so their version of events has forever been taught in public schools. And it is as biased and slanted as any aspect of American history ).

---

Lol. If you only read history written from one country then yes you only get that slant.

But the American revolution has plenty of scholars that have researched it and written about it.

And guess what? Not a single one says that England invaded the colonies.

Just as no serious scholar of the civil war (from any country) claims the US invaded the US or that the north started the war.

Just the same as no serious scholar says the war was about anything other than slavery.

---

Currently watching Ken Burns American Revolution series and just finished re reading the first 2 books of Rick Atkinson triology The War for America. ( best detailed account of the war I have ever read ).

Also reading Interlude in Umbarger; the history of an Italian POW camp in Hereford Texas. And how a handful of prisoners painted beautiful murals inside a small Catholic Church nearby, in exchange for FOOD. As the US military was purposely semi starving the Italian prisoners after WW2 was already OVER. As the condition of our men recently released from German POW camps outraged the American public. ( a friend took me to see the Church in Umbarger, Texas. Although the murals are nice it is the account on how the US intentionally starved these Italian POW's that is really interesting )

Also listening to two fascinating audio books. One the history of sugar and its impact on slavery. Learning a lot.

Along with a 2nd audio book discussing the impact of potatoes and other grain crops on the history of European populations and the population of the world in general. Absolutely amazing.

BTW the British believed they were invading their colonies to SAVE THEIR PEOPLE ( loyalists ) from the abuses of the 'rebels'. As mob rule had taken over much of the colonies.

But then the 'rebels' won the war ( primarily due to massive aid from France ) and are now described as ' patriots ' and the loyalists are now remembered as 'tories'. ( that's how it always works )

Southerners not only believed each state had the right to secede from the Union; ( which was the a common belief both North and South ); but as a newly sovereign nation they had the right to defend themselves. Especially after Lincoln ordered the mobilization of 75,000 troops ( by far the largest army in US history up to that time ) to ' save the Union'.Excellent propaganda by the way….Lincoln was a political genius though a poor military strategist.


Northern aggression eventually succeeded at the cost of approximately 500,000 yankee dead ( primarily from disease ) so their interpretation of events leading up to the war is what is emphasized in our public schools.

With most publishing companies ( for texbooks as well ) located in the north....this is not surprising.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

A. Anti-slavery politicians did not seek abolition. They sought an end to the expansion of slavery. They did not believe they could constitutionally abolish. In the end, they needed a constitutional amendment (13th). The abolitionists had limited political influence in 1860.
B. Lincoln was the only anti-slavery presidential nominee in 1870, out of 4. And he did not seek abolition. He even reversed some emancipations by the army in the early months of the war for fear the border states might join the south.
C. The South started the Civil War by shooting at federal forces (kinda like Minneapolis traitors attacking ICE). And this was because they lost the 1860 election and refused to accept the results of the electorate (like the fascists' reaction to Trump each time). The crazy thing is that they guaranteed they would lose when they ran 2 candidates in 1860 so the votes would be split.
Of course Gone With the Wind is fiction, with gross distortions of history. But the romanticization of the antebellum south was not isolated. It permeated much of pop culture, like woke & DEI trash does today, and had intellectual support as well, like woke today.
D. The Union Army acted like most armies in most wars throughout human history, including the Confederates. It is often ugly and brutal. That's one reason it's accurately said that "War is hell" (Sherman). But it was not a war that the North started.

---

A. simply not true...not in the slightest
B. Lincoln was long dead in 1870
C. Feds invaded the South. Not the other way around. Period.
D. North began the war....a war of political and economic domination. They could have avoided a war the same way Great Britain did. By paying compensation for lost investment.

---

A. 100% true: abolitionists were not politicians any who managed to get elected had minimal impact
B. Typo corrected in original
C. The U.S. Army invaded after the South started the war: Ft Sumter, seizing federal forts, mobilizing an army to fight, etc. What Southerners did was treason. What Lincoln did was necessary and explicitly authorized by the constitution.
D. The army forces at Ft Sumter did not start shooting on Ft Johnson or Ft Moultrie. It was the other way around.

Some do that as well

Actually, the Civil War was about a variety of issues, as most huge conflicts usually are. But slavery was by far the most important and connecting to all of the others. The country was greatly divided in many ways but it was cultural as much as sectional (geographic) and underlying it all was slavery.

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

A. Anti-slavery politicians did not seek abolition. They sought an end to the expansion of slavery. They did not believe they could constitutionally abolish. In the end, they needed a constitutional amendment (13th). The abolitionists had limited political influence in 1860.
B. Lincoln was the only anti-slavery presidential nominee in 1860, out of 4. And he did not seek abolition. He even reversed some emancipations by the army in the early months of the war for fear the border states might join the south.
C. The South started the Civil War by shooting at federal forces (kinda like Minneapolis traitors attacking ICE). And this was because they lost the 1860 election and refused to accept the results of the electorate (like the fascists' reaction to Trump each time). The crazy thing is that they guaranteed they would lose when they ran 2 candidates in 1860 so the votes would be split.
Of course Gone With the Wind is fiction, with gross distortions of history. But the romanticization of the antebellum south was not isolated. It permeated much of pop culture, like woke & DEI trash does today, and had intellectual support as well, like woke today.
D. The Union Army acted like most armies in most wars throughout human history, including the Confederates. It is often ugly and brutal. That's one reason it's accurately said that "War is hell" (Sherman). But it was not a war that the North started.

---

The MN National Guard attacked ICE??? I missed that a formed military representing the State attacked ICE.

By the way, where do you teach????

Wangchung said:

---

canoso said:

---

historian said:

---

canoso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The leaders probably realize that they are.

However, they also realize that their sheep will eat up whatever they feed to them. Especially if you keep their attention focused on a new topic every few weeks or so.

So they know they can keep lying and create the narrative they want and the idiots that support them will continue to eat it up. At least for the foreseeable future.

---

Those on the left aren't sheep. Think horns and butting people.

---

They often act like sheep in their blind support for the stupidest ideas and most evil policies: abortion on demand, open borders, setting criminals loose to commit more crimes, the climate cult, the trans cult, the covid cult, BLM, DEI, snd every other form of Marxism.

---

I'm still going with the horned creatures that deliberately butt people just for kicks.

---

Right? Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell.

---

Correct. I'm sticking with the horned animal that butts as best characterizing the political left, with which I do not identify.

I never said anything about the NG attacking ICE. Fascists mobs organized & paid by Leftist NGOs have been doing that for months. Whomever does it, it's an obvious crime to hinder authorities exercising their duties. Many of these attacks were life threatening.

historian said:

---

I never said anything about the NG attacking ICE. Fascists mobs organized & paid by Leftist NGOs have been doing that for months. Whomever does it, it's an obvious crime to hinder authorities exercising their duties. Many of these attacks were life threatening.

---

Sure you did. You compared MN to the firing on Fort Sumter. That was done by a Confederate Army and was led by General J.E.B. Beauregard. So, the MN ice situation must have not only had a firing of weapons at ICE, but led by some official entity. You said it and you are a Historian.

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

A. Anti-slavery politicians did not seek abolition. They sought an end to the expansion of slavery. They did not believe they could constitutionally abolish. In the end, they needed a constitutional amendment (13th). The abolitionists had limited political influence in 1860.
B. Lincoln was the only anti-slavery presidential nominee in 1870, out of 4. And he did not seek abolition. He even reversed some emancipations by the army in the early months of the war for fear the border states might join the south.
C. The South started the Civil War by shooting at federal forces (kinda like Minneapolis traitors attacking ICE). And this was because they lost the 1860 election and refused to accept the results of the electorate (like the fascists' reaction to Trump each time). The crazy thing is that they guaranteed they would lose when they ran 2 candidates in 1860 so the votes would be split.
Of course Gone With the Wind is fiction, with gross distortions of history. But the romanticization of the antebellum south was not isolated. It permeated much of pop culture, like woke & DEI trash does today, and had intellectual support as well, like woke today.
D. The Union Army acted like most armies in most wars throughout human history, including the Confederates. It is often ugly and brutal. That's one reason it's accurately said that "War is hell" (Sherman). But it was not a war that the North started.

---

A. simply not true...not in the slightest
B. Lincoln was long dead in 1870
C. Feds invaded the South. Not the other way around. Period.
D. North began the war....a war of political and economic domination. They could have avoided a war the same way Great Britain did. By paying compensation for lost investment.

---

A. 100% true: abolitionists were not politicians any who managed to get elected had minimal impact
B. Typo corrected in original
C. The U.S. Army invaded after the South started the war: Ft Sumter, seizing federal forts, mobilizing an army to fight, etc. What Southerners did was treason. What Lincoln did was necessary and explicitly authorized by the constitution.
D. The army forces at Ft Sumter did not start shooting on Ft Johnson or Ft Moultrie. It was the other way around.

---

Good grief....northern politicians were most certainly abolitionists. As by 1860 they constantly voted against the south and supported the vast majority of abolitionist positions.

Again...winners write the textbooks. South Carolina had the legal right the leave the union. ( which is why Davis was never tried for treason ) Lincoln repeatedly refused to withdraw his troops from the forts; which effectively closed South Carolina biggest port to shipping. An obvious act of war. In addition Lincoln attempted to send additional troops and weapons to the forts. Still another act of war.

By the way when Davis left his senate seat...... before he was elected president of the confederacy ....he gave a farewell speech to the chamber. Davis literally begged the northern senators to let Mississppi and other southern states to ' go in peace'.

Lincoln wanted none of it.

And when you win ( and own almost all of the publishing houses ) ......you can frame the narrative however you wish.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

A. Anti-slavery politicians did not seek abolition. They sought an end to the expansion of slavery. They did not believe they could constitutionally abolish. In the end, they needed a constitutional amendment (13th). The abolitionists had limited political influence in 1860.
B. Lincoln was the only anti-slavery presidential nominee in 1870, out of 4. And he did not seek abolition. He even reversed some emancipations by the army in the early months of the war for fear the border states might join the south.
C. The South started the Civil War by shooting at federal forces (kinda like Minneapolis traitors attacking ICE). And this was because they lost the 1860 election and refused to accept the results of the electorate (like the fascists' reaction to Trump each time). The crazy thing is that they guaranteed they would lose when they ran 2 candidates in 1860 so the votes would be split.
Of course Gone With the Wind is fiction, with gross distortions of history. But the romanticization of the antebellum south was not isolated. It permeated much of pop culture, like woke & DEI trash does today, and had intellectual support as well, like woke today.
D. The Union Army acted like most armies in most wars throughout human history, including the Confederates. It is often ugly and brutal. That's one reason it's accurately said that "War is hell" (Sherman). But it was not a war that the North started.

---

A. simply not true...not in the slightest
B. Lincoln was long dead in 1870
C. Feds invaded the South. Not the other way around. Period.
D. North began the war....a war of political and economic domination. They could have avoided a war the same way Great Britain did. By paying compensation for lost investment.

---

A. 100% true: abolitionists were not politicians any who managed to get elected had minimal impact
B. Typo corrected in original
C. The U.S. Army invaded after the South started the war: Ft Sumter, seizing federal forts, mobilizing an army to fight, etc. What Southerners did was treason. What Lincoln did was necessary and explicitly authorized by the constitution.
D. The army forces at Ft Sumter did not start shooting on Ft Johnson or Ft Moultrie. It was the other way around.

---

Good grief....northern politicians were most certainly abolitionists. As by 1860 they constantly voted against the south and supported the vast majority of abolitionist positions.

Again...winners write the textbooks. South Carolina had the legal right the leave the union. ( which is why Davis was never tried for treason ) Lincoln repeatedly refused to withdraw his troops from the forts; which effectively closed South Carolina biggest port to shipping. An obvious act of war. In addition Lincoln attempted to send additional troops and weapons to the forts. Still another act of war.

By the way when Davis left his senate seat...... before he was elected president of the confederacy ....he gave a farewell speech to the chamber. Davis literally begged the northern senators to let Mississppi and other southern states to ' go in peace'.

Lincoln wanted none of it.

And when you win ( and own almost all of the publishing houses ) ......you can frame the narrative however you wish.

---

Lol. Stats do not have the legal right to secede. The civil war proved that as well as court cases.

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

I never said anything about the NG attacking ICE. Fascists mobs organized & paid by Leftist NGOs have been doing that for months. Whomever does it, it's an obvious crime to hinder authorities exercising their duties. Many of these attacks were life threatening.

---

Sure you did. You compared MN to the firing on Fort Sumter. That was done by a Confederate Army and was led by General J.E.B. Beauregard. So, the MN ice situation must have not only had a firing of weapons at ICE, but led by some official entity. You said it and you are a Historian.

---

That's a very tenuous stretch and you are putting words in my mouth. No I did not say that.

How many times do I have to say this? In 1860, politicians were NOT seeking the immediate abolition of slavery. That's the definition of an abolitionist. They agreed with that as an ultimate dream but did not think it constitutional. So no, they were not trying to achieve that at the beginning. Many Northern Dems were strongly opposed to the idea in 1860 and throughout the war.

By 1862, some Republicans were coming around to the idea. Lincoln decided on Emancipation through executive order during the summer. That changed everything, along with important military victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg.

historian said:

---

How many times do I have to say this? In 1860, politicians were NOT seeking the immediate abolition of slavery. That's the definition of an abolitionist. They agreed with that as an ultimate dream but did not think it constitutional. So no, they were not trying to achieve that at the beginning. Many Northern Dems were strongly opposed to the idea in 1860 and throughout the war.

By 1862, some Republicans were coming around to the idea. Lincoln decided on Emancipation through executive order during the summer. That changed everything, along with important military victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg.

---

You are simply wrong no how manner times you say it.

In vote after vote Northern senators voted for policies that would strangle the slavery based economy.

They voted for policies that guaranteed the increase of anti slavery members of the senate by forbidding the expansion of slavery in newly admitted states.

Southerners were not naive….they clearly saw what was coming. And after watching the horrible massacre of European slave owners in Haiti ; they weren't going to be similarly murdered.

Again the obvious solution was to follow the example of Great Britain. Emancipation with compensation.

But the North desired political and economic domination of the South instead.

And they got it.

You are simply wrong no matter how many times you say it.

How many abolition bills did northern congressmen introduce? To my knowledge none. They might have tried other methods to achieve the same goal but indirectly. They did not believe it was constitutional to do so!

historian said:

---

You are simply wrong no matter how many times you say it.

How many abolition bills did northern congressmen introduce? To my knowledge none. They might have tried other methods to achieve the same goal but not directly. They did not believe it was constitutional to do so!

---

Good grief...you are reduced to merely repeating my first line.

Northern policiies prior to the war are a matter of historical record. ( though ignored in our public school textbooks ) But now you want to play word games about 'directly'.

With the balance in the senate between senators from 'free' and 'slave' states obviously going to be slanted against the south.....due to the reality that new slave states were not going to be allowed............

It didn't take a genius to see what was coming.

Compensation had already been rejected.

John Brown was held to be a 'hero' in the North despite murdering people in Kansas and Virginia.

Uncle Tom's Cabin....a ridiculous piece of fiction....had almost everyone in the North going out of their minds.




With the masscre of THOUSANDS of Europeans in Hatiti by slaves...southeners felt they couldn't rely on the common sense or 'mercy' of northeners.

By the way....... the war was about South Carolina reopening their own port..........why did Lincoln invade VIRGINIA with his huge army instead ?

Why did Lincoln invade MISSOURI ? ( and remove the state government by force )

If Lincolon was so innocent....one would think he would have been focused on SOUTH CAROLINA.

We are talking past each other and probably more in agreement than you realize. Many northerners hated slavery and wanted it ended. But they did not believe they had authority to directly abolish it so they tried to find other ways. They were determined not to allow any more slave states (Texas in 1845 was the last). But that's not the same as outright abolition. Making the distinction and apparently you aren't. I think it's an important one. They were thinking long term while the abolitionists wanted immediate abolition and immediate equality, a radical idea in 1850.

Uncle Tom's Cabin is a great work of propaganda fiction. Many northerners loved it. IIRC, it was v originally serialized in newspapers so people eagerly awaited each installment.

Lincoln was probably as guilt as any wartime president except the enemy was here in the US instead of thousands of miles away. That makes a difference. I don't believe he was guilty of war crimes any more than I think George Washington or James Madison was.

Union strategy focused on Virginia because it was the center of the confederacy. It was also the location of the capital, Richmond. Once the southern states joined the rebellion each was a legitimate target. It was sound strategy.

Lincoln held on to the border states (slave states that did not secede) tightly because he was not going to allow them to join the confederacy. He had strong political instincts and over time learned more about the military. By 1863-64, I think he had a decent grasp of the concept of "total war". That's what the Civil War was which is one reason it offered more lessons for WWI generals than 18th century wars did.

Kaibear, historian, what I see you both missing is the cultural influence of decades of debate. How many 'compromise' bills were passed between 1824 and 1855, to try to prevent the war everyone saw coming but no one wanted (except for Europe, where a number of powers hoped to gain from the American fracture)?

This is vital to the context of everything said and done just before it blew up into a hot war.

historian said:

---

We are talking past each other and probably more in agreement than you realize. Many northerners hated slavery and wanted it ended. But they did not believe they had authority to directly abolish it so they tried to find other ways. They were determined not to allow any more slave states (Texas in 1845 was the last). But that's not the same as outright abolition. Making the distinction and apparently you aren't. I think it's an important one. They were thinking long term while the abolitionists wanted immediate abolition and immediate equality, a radical idea in 1850.

Uncle Tom's Cabin is a great work of propaganda fiction. Many northerners loved it. IIRC, it was v originally serialized in newspapers so people eagerly awaited each installment.

Lincoln was probably as guilt as any wartime president except the enemy was here in the US instead of thousands of miles away. That makes a difference. I don't believe he was guilty of war crimes any more than I think George Washington or James Madison was.

Union strategy focused on Virginia because it was the center of the confederacy. It was also the location of the capital, Richmond. Once the southern states joined the rebellion each was a legitimate target. It was sound strategy.

Lincoln held on to the border states (slave states that did not secede) tightly because he was not going to allow them to join the confederacy. He had strong political instincts and over time learned more about the military. By 1863-64, I think he had a decent grasp of the concept of "total war". That's what the Civil War was which is one reason it offered more lessons for WWI generals than 18th century wars did.

---

You are attempting to justify basic , hardcore northern aggression against a people who simply wanted to leave a union ( as they most certainly had the right to do …..although after the war the laws were changed ) that they no longer felt safe to belong to.

The north invaded Virginia…..which only left the union AFTER
Lincoln had called for the mobilization of 75,000 troops.

Lincoln invaded Missouri and forced out the popular ELECTED state legislature and governor. Lincoln invaded Maryland…..invaded Delaware…..even though these slaves states had not done ANYTHING.

Lincoln brought on a horrible war which cost the lives of approximately 500,000 Yankees and 380,000 confederates.
In both cases mostly by disease. Not to mention the additional hundreds of thousands of men who were permanently crippled by war wounds or illness.

An entire region was burned, looted and destroyed.

If the issue was solely about emancipation……compensation and a comprehensive plan for the education of the slaves would have been cheaper .

And God knows less bloody.

Congress had stopped trying to legislate free or slave state for new states well before the start of the war.

They were forced to by Dred Scott that said Congress could not decide that.

Lincoln did not invade anything. A country cannot invade itself.

cowboycwr said:

---

Congress had stopped trying to legislate free or slave state for new states well before the start of the war.

They were forced to by Dred Scott that said Congress could not decide that.

Lincoln did not invade anything. A country cannot invade itself.

---

Unreal.


A. Winners always control the post war narrative. just ask the Germans, Italians or Japanese. There are entire aspects of WW1 and WW2 that are rarely ( if ever ) taught in public schools. However with the internet.....far more information is available.
B. By 1860 slavery could no longer expand. Which obviously meant the North would dominate the senate as new 'free' states were accepted.
C. Lincoln absolutely started the war. Lincoln could have advocated compensation such as Great Britain did several years earlier. But Lincoln chose to mobilize 75,000 troops instead. Only then did Virginia, North Carolina and Tennesse choose to leave the union.
D. The north's total population did not exceed 22 million people. Men of fighting age of course were much fewer.
Aprox 500,000 yankees died winning the war; primarily from disease.

Brilliant choices.

Speaking about the right side of history, here is a worthy process improvement - resumption of regular order. There is no pathway to a balanced budget without it.

With DHS pending, Congress (controlled by GOP) has now passed 11 of 12 appropriations bills using regular order — not giant omnibus bills slammed together behind closed doors up against cliffs & deadlines. This hasn’t happened in decades. This is good! https://t.co/8NShai0cbA

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 3, 2026

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Congress had stopped trying to legislate free or slave state for new states well before the start of the war.

They were forced to by Dred Scott that said Congress could not decide that.

Lincoln did not invade anything. A country cannot invade itself.

---

Unreal.


A. Winners always control the post war narrative. just ask the Germans, Italians or Japanese. There are entire aspects of WW1 and WW2 that are rarely ( if ever ) taught in public schools. However with the internet.....far more information is available.
B. By 1860 slavery could no longer expand. Which obviously meant the North would dominate the senate as new 'free' states were accepted.
C. Lincoln absolutely started the war. Lincoln could have advocated compensation such as Great Britain did several years earlier. But Lincoln chose to mobilize 75,000 troops instead. Only then did Virginia, North Carolina and Tennesse choose to leave the union.
D. The north's total population did not exceed 22 million people. Men of fighting age of course were much fewer.
Aprox 500,000 yankees died winning the war; primarily from disease.

Brilliant choices.

---

Lol.

No you have YOUR version of history and refuse to accept facts that disprove that.

There was no law in place that prevented new slave states in 1860. To claim otherwise is a flat out lie.

Lincoln did not start the war. South Carolina did when they fired the first shots of the war. That is 100% fact.

Your casualty figures are off and wrong.

You still have not answered my question but ignore it because it destroys your invasion argument. Is the US currently invading itself with military bases in the states?

I also notice you dropped your argument of "states can legally secede" once prevented the FACTS that they cannot as ruled by the Supreme Court.

You move the goal posts anytime facts destroy your narrative of history and reply with some lame excuse about the "victors" writing history.

The North had a far larger population than the South.

And because .......membership in the house is determined by....you guessed it..... population....

The North ALREADY dominated the house.

Since there were not any further slave states possible to be admitted to the union......the north would dominate the senate as well. The North would have total control of the South's economic and political future.

You can argue the number of KIA's all you wish....but the civil war remains the deadliest in US history.
When including the huge number of yankees dying in the hot/humid climate of the deep south....yellow fever, malaria, typhoid, smallpox 500,000 is approachable.

Confederates lost approx 400,000 again mostly from disease.

States had the legal right to leave the union. which is why Davis and Lee were never tried for treason.And the SC did not make that ruling until the war was already won ( shocking right....imagine if the SC had ruled in favor of the south when the north had spent so much in blood ! )
Lincoln rejected compensation out of hand....Lincoln did NOT attack South Carolina after Fort Sumter surrendered. He mobilzed 75,000 troops and invaded Virgina, Missouri, and Maryland.

historian said:

---

Fascinating essay:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/01/is_it_finally_dawning_on_the_collectivist_left_that_they_are_on_the_wrong_side_of_history.html

It should be obvious that those who always lie and use force to achieve their goals are in the wrong. Most people don't l pay enough attention or think.

---

no. they don't

KaiBear said:

---

The North had a far larger population than the South.

And because .......membership in the house is determined by....you guessed it..... population....

The North ALREADY dominated the house.

Since there were not any further slave states possible to be admitted to the union......the north would dominate the senate as well. The North would have total control of the South's economic and political future.

You can argue the number of KIA's all you wish....but the civil war remains the deadliest in US history.
When including the huge number of yankees dying in the hot/humid climate of the deep south....yellow fever, malaria, typhoid, smallpox 500,000 is approachable.

Confederates lost approx 400,000 again mostly from disease.

States had the legal right to leave the union. which is why Davis and Lee were never tried for treason.And the SC did not make that ruling until the war was already won ( shocking right....imagine if the SC had ruled in favor of the south when the north had spent so much in blood ! )
Lincoln rejected compensation out of hand....Lincoln did NOT attack South Carolina after Fort Sumter surrendered. He mobilzed 75,000 troops and invaded Virgina, Missouri, and Maryland.

---

Making a long post full of lies doesn't change the facts.

The Supreme Court said that Congress could not determine slave or free state. That is fact.

I asked for specific laws I. Place that prevented new slave states. You gave none because there are none.

You can dismiss the Supreme Court ruling all you want but it is fact and proves there was no legal right to secede. You cannot point to any law, ruling or anything to back up your claim. All you have is you saying that.

States did not have a legal right to leave the union. Period. Provide a law or Supreme Court ruling stating otherwise or admit you are wrong.

They not being tried for treason is not proof of anything.

Your casualties numbers are wrong. There were not that many combined deaths.

Is the US invading itself with military bases in the states?

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The North had a far larger population than the South.

And because .......membership in the house is determined by....you guessed it..... population....

The North ALREADY dominated the house.

Since there were not any further slave states possible to be admitted to the union......the north would dominate the senate as well. The North would have total control of the South's economic and political future.

You can argue the number of KIA's all you wish....but the civil war remains the deadliest in US history.
When including the huge number of yankees dying in the hot/humid climate of the deep south....yellow fever, malaria, typhoid, smallpox 500,000 is approachable.

Confederates lost approx 400,000 again mostly from disease.

States had the legal right to leave the union. which is why Davis and Lee were never tried for treason.And the SC did not make that ruling until the war was already won ( shocking right....imagine if the SC had ruled in favor of the south when the north had spent so much in blood ! )
Lincoln rejected compensation out of hand....Lincoln did NOT attack South Carolina after Fort Sumter surrendered. He mobilzed 75,000 troops and invaded Virgina, Missouri, and Maryland.

---

Making a long post full of lies doesn't change the facts.

The Supreme Court said that Congress could not determine slave or free state. That is fact.

I asked for specific laws I. Place that prevented new slave states. You gave none because there are none.

You can dismiss the Supreme Court ruling all you want but it is fact and proves there was no legal right to secede. You cannot point to any law, ruling or anything to back up your claim. All you have is you saying that.

States did not have a legal right to leave the union. Period. Provide a law or Supreme Court ruling stating otherwise or admit you are wrong.

They not being tried for treason is not proof of anything.

Your casualties numbers are wrong. There were not that many combined deaths.

Is the US invading itself with military bases in the states?

---

I don't appreciate you saying I am lying. I do not refer to you
In such a manner and it's just a matter of typing. So let's keep it civil or forget it.

The SC did not rule against the right of secession until 1869.
Texas vs White I believe .

Now think about it. The war has been over for several years but Federal bayonets still control Texas and several other southern states . Reconstruction is ongoing and a nightmare for the South and an embarrassment for the North.

Hundreds of thousands of Yankees died 'preserving the Union '. Many thousands more were crippled by wounds or illnesses. Do you really think ANY Supreme Court would then turn around and pronounce the war a fraud ? That everyone's 'noble dead' had been led to the killing fields on a lie ?

Of course not. The judges would have been immediately attacked or worse.

Not sure where you got your estimates …but when deaths from illnesses are included the numbers skyrocket. As they did in every war until WW2. In any case the casualties were catastrophic…..even more so when the relatively small populations of the North and South are taken into account.

Great Britain solved their slavery issue via compensation.
The US could have easily done the same; and in the process save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people , both North and South.

The slaves would have then be emancipated and just as importantly…..educated .. in an orderly fashion without the bitterness that came with the war and Reconstruction.

But Lincoln and the North had other goals.

And they accomplished them …and the results lasted for almost a century.

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The North had a far larger population than the South.

And because .......membership in the house is determined by....you guessed it..... population....

The North ALREADY dominated the house.

Since there were not any further slave states possible to be admitted to the union......the north would dominate the senate as well. The North would have total control of the South's economic and political future.

You can argue the number of KIA's all you wish....but the civil war remains the deadliest in US history.
When including the huge number of yankees dying in the hot/humid climate of the deep south....yellow fever, malaria, typhoid, smallpox 500,000 is approachable.

Confederates lost approx 400,000 again mostly from disease.

States had the legal right to leave the union. which is why Davis and Lee were never tried for treason.And the SC did not make that ruling until the war was already won ( shocking right....imagine if the SC had ruled in favor of the south when the north had spent so much in blood ! )
Lincoln rejected compensation out of hand....Lincoln did NOT attack South Carolina after Fort Sumter surrendered. He mobilzed 75,000 troops and invaded Virgina, Missouri, and Maryland.

---

Making a long post full of lies doesn't change the facts.

The Supreme Court said that Congress could not determine slave or free state. That is fact.

I asked for specific laws I. Place that prevented new slave states. You gave none because there are none.

You can dismiss the Supreme Court ruling all you want but it is fact and proves there was no legal right to secede. You cannot point to any law, ruling or anything to back up your claim. All you have is you saying that.

States did not have a legal right to leave the union. Period. Provide a law or Supreme Court ruling stating otherwise or admit you are wrong.

They not being tried for treason is not proof of anything.

Your casualties numbers are wrong. There were not that many combined deaths.

Is the US invading itself with military bases in the states?

---

I don't appreciate you saying I am lying. I do not refer to you
In such a manner and it's just a matter of typing. So let's keep it civil or forget it.

The SC did not rule against the right of secession until 1869.
Texas vs White I believe .

Now think about it. The war has been over for several years but Federal bayonets still control Texas and several other southern states . Reconstruction is ongoing and a nightmare for the South and an embarrassment for the North.

Hundreds of thousands of Yankees died 'preserving the Union '. Many thousands more were crippled by wounds or illnesses. Do you really think ANY Supreme Court would then turn around and pronounce the war a fraud ? That everyone's 'noble dead' had been led to the killing fields on a lie ?

Of course not. The judges would have been immediately attacked or worse.

Not sure where you got your estimates …but when deaths from illnesses are included the numbers skyrocket. As they did in every war until WW2. In any case the casualties were catastrophic…..even more so when the relatively small populations of the North and South are taken into account.

Great Britain solved their slavery issue via compensation.
The US could have easily done the same; and in the process save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people , both North and South.

The slaves would have then be emancipated and just as importantly…..educated .. in an orderly fashion without the bitterness that came with the war and Reconstruction.

But Lincoln and the North had other goals.

And they accomplished them …and the results lasted for almost a century.

---

When you keep typing the same thing despite facts being presented to you, ignore other facts presented to you, and ignore questions asked of you I can only assume you are lying on purpose.

For example, I have asked multiple times about the invasion question. You have ignored it because it destroys your argument.

I have also asked multiple times about the law passed that prevented new slave states from being added. You have ignored it because there is no such law and answering this question also destroys your claim.

On the casualty figures, look them up. Counting battlefield deaths and sickness/disease does not get close to the numbers you claim with the exception of a few fringe estimates that were increased to account for error.

For example most estimates put the disease totals at 400,000 max for both sides with low end at about 250,000.

On the Supreme Court case you can try to dismiss it all you want but it is a FACT that it proves secession was illegal. All you can argue on that is hypothetical and opinion "the war was over" and they couldn't make the war meaningless. But that is not fact.



Facts beat opinions every time. When someone keeps ignoring facts and keeps repeating the same opinions over and over again that to me is lying. Sorry if that offends you.

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The North had a far larger population than the South.

And because .......membership in the house is determined by....you guessed it..... population....

The North ALREADY dominated the house.

Since there were not any further slave states possible to be admitted to the union......the north would dominate the senate as well. The North would have total control of the South's economic and political future.

You can argue the number of KIA's all you wish....but the civil war remains the deadliest in US history.
When including the huge number of yankees dying in the hot/humid climate of the deep south....yellow fever, malaria, typhoid, smallpox 500,000 is approachable.

Confederates lost approx 400,000 again mostly from disease.

States had the legal right to leave the union. which is why Davis and Lee were never tried for treason.And the SC did not make that ruling until the war was already won ( shocking right....imagine if the SC had ruled in favor of the south when the north had spent so much in blood ! )
Lincoln rejected compensation out of hand....Lincoln did NOT attack South Carolina after Fort Sumter surrendered. He mobilzed 75,000 troops and invaded Virgina, Missouri, and Maryland.

---

Making a long post full of lies doesn't change the facts.

The Supreme Court said that Congress could not determine slave or free state. That is fact.

I asked for specific laws I. Place that prevented new slave states. You gave none because there are none.

You can dismiss the Supreme Court ruling all you want but it is fact and proves there was no legal right to secede. You cannot point to any law, ruling or anything to back up your claim. All you have is you saying that.

States did not have a legal right to leave the union. Period. Provide a law or Supreme Court ruling stating otherwise or admit you are wrong.

They not being tried for treason is not proof of anything.

Your casualties numbers are wrong. There were not that many combined deaths.

Is the US invading itself with military bases in the states?

---

I don't appreciate you saying I am lying. I do not refer to you
In such a manner and it's just a matter of typing. So let's keep it civil or forget it.

The SC did not rule against the right of secession until 1869.
Texas vs White I believe .

Now think about it. The war has been over for several years but Federal bayonets still control Texas and several other southern states . Reconstruction is ongoing and a nightmare for the South and an embarrassment for the North.

Hundreds of thousands of Yankees died 'preserving the Union '. Many thousands more were crippled by wounds or illnesses. Do you really think ANY Supreme Court would then turn around and pronounce the war a fraud ? That everyone's 'noble dead' had been led to the killing fields on a lie ?

Of course not. The judges would have been immediately attacked or worse.

Not sure where you got your estimates …but when deaths from illnesses are included the numbers skyrocket. As they did in every war until WW2. In any case the casualties were catastrophic…..even more so when the relatively small populations of the North and South are taken into account.

Great Britain solved their slavery issue via compensation.
The US could have easily done the same; and in the process save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people , both North and South.

The slaves would have then be emancipated and just as importantly…..educated .. in an orderly fashion without the bitterness that came with the war and Reconstruction.

But Lincoln and the North had other goals.

And they accomplished them …and the results lasted for almost a century.

---

When you keep typing the same thing despite facts being presented to you, ignore other facts presented to you, and ignore questions asked of you I can only assume you are lying on purpose.

For example, I have asked multiple times about the invasion question. You have ignored it because it destroys your argument.

I have also asked multiple times about the law passed that prevented new slave states from being added. You have ignored it because there is no such law and answering this question also destroys your claim.

On the casualty figures, look them up. Counting battlefield deaths and sickness/disease does not get close to the numbers you claim with the exception of a few fringe estimates that were increased to account for error.

For example most estimates put the disease totals at 400,000 max for both sides with low end at about 250,000.

On the Supreme Court case you can try to dismiss it all you want but it is a FACT that it proves secession was illegal. All you can argue on that is hypothetical and opinion "the war was over" and they couldn't make the war meaningless. But that is not fact.



Facts beat opinions every time. When someone keeps ignoring facts and keeps repeating the same opinions over and over again that to me is lying. Sorry if that offends you.

---

Although I am aware it is a total waste of time…as you never alter your views on anything…....will go through my library and look up the the references regarding the legal position of the
succession. Not going to happen over night as I have bigger priorities; but will do so as time allows.

Broadly speaking southern states referred to the articles in the Constitution that not only guaranteed the right of slavery….but obligated all states to return fugitive slaves. Since northern states were not returning such slaves ( representing a huge financial loss to the owners ) the southern position was the Constitution, as a contract among , sovereign states had been repeatedly violated. And as with any other contract….failure to honor the terms of that contract permitted the termination of the contract by those same sovereign states.

Of course this will not satisfy you….. however will enjoy re reading the applicable works.

As far as whether or not it was an invasion……common sense would dictate that hundreds of thousands of southerners were willing to fight and die to protect their homes from the yankee hoard. This wasn't a football contest ….or some social phenomenon; rather it was a natural response to a huge, physical and financial threat.

Keep in mind Virginia , Tennessee and North Carolina only left the Union AFTER Lincoln had called for the mobilization of 75,000 men. Obviously the people in these states were responding to the threat of invasion.

Since you persist with the insults…..can only wonder if such an attitude contributes to your dramatic business and financial success.

Will continue our discussion when I have pertinent references.

Have a nice day.

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The North had a far larger population than the South.

And because .......membership in the house is determined by....you guessed it..... population....

The North ALREADY dominated the house.

Since there were not any further slave states possible to be admitted to the union......the north would dominate the senate as well. The North would have total control of the South's economic and political future.

You can argue the number of KIA's all you wish....but the civil war remains the deadliest in US history.
When including the huge number of yankees dying in the hot/humid climate of the deep south....yellow fever, malaria, typhoid, smallpox 500,000 is approachable.

Confederates lost approx 400,000 again mostly from disease.

States had the legal right to leave the union. which is why Davis and Lee were never tried for treason.And the SC did not make that ruling until the war was already won ( shocking right....imagine if the SC had ruled in favor of the south when the north had spent so much in blood ! )
Lincoln rejected compensation out of hand....Lincoln did NOT attack South Carolina after Fort Sumter surrendered. He mobilzed 75,000 troops and invaded Virgina, Missouri, and Maryland.

---

Making a long post full of lies doesn't change the facts.

The Supreme Court said that Congress could not determine slave or free state. That is fact.

I asked for specific laws I. Place that prevented new slave states. You gave none because there are none.

You can dismiss the Supreme Court ruling all you want but it is fact and proves there was no legal right to secede. You cannot point to any law, ruling or anything to back up your claim. All you have is you saying that.

States did not have a legal right to leave the union. Period. Provide a law or Supreme Court ruling stating otherwise or admit you are wrong.

They not being tried for treason is not proof of anything.

Your casualties numbers are wrong. There were not that many combined deaths.

Is the US invading itself with military bases in the states?

---

I don't appreciate you saying I am lying. I do not refer to you
In such a manner and it's just a matter of typing. So let's keep it civil or forget it.

The SC did not rule against the right of secession until 1869.
Texas vs White I believe .

Now think about it. The war has been over for several years but Federal bayonets still control Texas and several other southern states . Reconstruction is ongoing and a nightmare for the South and an embarrassment for the North.

Hundreds of thousands of Yankees died 'preserving the Union '. Many thousands more were crippled by wounds or illnesses. Do you really think ANY Supreme Court would then turn around and pronounce the war a fraud ? That everyone's 'noble dead' had been led to the killing fields on a lie ?

Of course not. The judges would have been immediately attacked or worse.

Not sure where you got your estimates …but when deaths from illnesses are included the numbers skyrocket. As they did in every war until WW2. In any case the casualties were catastrophic…..even more so when the relatively small populations of the North and South are taken into account.

Great Britain solved their slavery issue via compensation.
The US could have easily done the same; and in the process save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people , both North and South.

The slaves would have then be emancipated and just as importantly…..educated .. in an orderly fashion without the bitterness that came with the war and Reconstruction.

But Lincoln and the North had other goals.

And they accomplished them …and the results lasted for almost a century.

---

When you keep typing the same thing despite facts being presented to you, ignore other facts presented to you, and ignore questions asked of you I can only assume you are lying on purpose.

For example, I have asked multiple times about the invasion question. You have ignored it because it destroys your argument.

I have also asked multiple times about the law passed that prevented new slave states from being added. You have ignored it because there is no such law and answering this question also destroys your claim.

On the casualty figures, look them up. Counting battlefield deaths and sickness/disease does not get close to the numbers you claim with the exception of a few fringe estimates that were increased to account for error.

For example most estimates put the disease totals at 400,000 max for both sides with low end at about 250,000.

On the Supreme Court case you can try to dismiss it all you want but it is a FACT that it proves secession was illegal. All you can argue on that is hypothetical and opinion "the war was over" and they couldn't make the war meaningless. But that is not fact.



Facts beat opinions every time. When someone keeps ignoring facts and keeps repeating the same opinions over and over again that to me is lying. Sorry if that offends you.

---

Although I am aware it is a total waste of time…as you never alter your views on anything…....will go through my library and look up the the references regarding the legal position of the
succession. Not going to happen over night as I have bigger priorities; but will do so as time allows.

Broadly speaking southern states referred to the articles in the Constitution that not only guaranteed the right of slavery….but obligated all states to return fugitive slaves. Since northern states were not returning such slaves ( representing a huge financial loss to the owners ) the southern position was the Constitution, as a contract among , sovereign states had been repeatedly violated. And as with any other contract….failure to honor the terms of that contract permitted the termination of the contract by those same sovereign states.

Of course this will not satisfy you….. however will enjoy re reading the applicable works.

As far as whether or not it was an invasion……common sense would dictate that hundreds of thousands of southerners were willing to fight and die to protect their homes from the yankee hoard. This wasn't a football contest ….or some social phenomenon; rather it was a natural response to a huge, physical and financial threat.

Keep in mind Virginia , Tennessee and North Carolina only left the Union AFTER Lincoln had called for the mobilization of 75,000 men. Obviously the people in these states were responding to the threat of invasion.

Since you persist with the insults…..can only wonder if such an attitude contributes to your dramatic business and financial success.

Will continue our discussion when I have pertinent references.

Have a nice day.

---

You guys may find this site useful, it has the succeeding Declaration of Causes for the States, they appear verbatim.

Maybe their own words will put some finality to it. I was surprised reading them...


The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States | American Battlefield Trust

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The North had a far larger population than the South.

And because .......membership in the house is determined by....you guessed it..... population....

The North ALREADY dominated the house.

Since there were not any further slave states possible to be admitted to the union......the north would dominate the senate as well. The North would have total control of the South's economic and political future.

You can argue the number of KIA's all you wish....but the civil war remains the deadliest in US history.
When including the huge number of yankees dying in the hot/humid climate of the deep south....yellow fever, malaria, typhoid, smallpox 500,000 is approachable.

Confederates lost approx 400,000 again mostly from disease.

States had the legal right to leave the union. which is why Davis and Lee were never tried for treason.And the SC did not make that ruling until the war was already won ( shocking right....imagine if the SC had ruled in favor of the south when the north had spent so much in blood ! )
Lincoln rejected compensation out of hand....Lincoln did NOT attack South Carolina after Fort Sumter surrendered. He mobilzed 75,000 troops and invaded Virgina, Missouri, and Maryland.

---

Making a long post full of lies doesn't change the facts.

The Supreme Court said that Congress could not determine slave or free state. That is fact.

I asked for specific laws I. Place that prevented new slave states. You gave none because there are none.

You can dismiss the Supreme Court ruling all you want but it is fact and proves there was no legal right to secede. You cannot point to any law, ruling or anything to back up your claim. All you have is you saying that.

States did not have a legal right to leave the union. Period. Provide a law or Supreme Court ruling stating otherwise or admit you are wrong.

They not being tried for treason is not proof of anything.

Your casualties numbers are wrong. There were not that many combined deaths.

Is the US invading itself with military bases in the states?

---

I don't appreciate you saying I am lying. I do not refer to you
In such a manner and it's just a matter of typing. So let's keep it civil or forget it.

The SC did not rule against the right of secession until 1869.
Texas vs White I believe .

Now think about it. The war has been over for several years but Federal bayonets still control Texas and several other southern states . Reconstruction is ongoing and a nightmare for the South and an embarrassment for the North.

Hundreds of thousands of Yankees died 'preserving the Union '. Many thousands more were crippled by wounds or illnesses. Do you really think ANY Supreme Court would then turn around and pronounce the war a fraud ? That everyone's 'noble dead' had been led to the killing fields on a lie ?

Of course not. The judges would have been immediately attacked or worse.

Not sure where you got your estimates …but when deaths from illnesses are included the numbers skyrocket. As they did in every war until WW2. In any case the casualties were catastrophic…..even more so when the relatively small populations of the North and South are taken into account.

Great Britain solved their slavery issue via compensation.
The US could have easily done the same; and in the process save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people , both North and South.

The slaves would have then be emancipated and just as importantly…..educated .. in an orderly fashion without the bitterness that came with the war and Reconstruction.

But Lincoln and the North had other goals.

And they accomplished them …and the results lasted for almost a century.

---

When you keep typing the same thing despite facts being presented to you, ignore other facts presented to you, and ignore questions asked of you I can only assume you are lying on purpose.

For example, I have asked multiple times about the invasion question. You have ignored it because it destroys your argument.

I have also asked multiple times about the law passed that prevented new slave states from being added. You have ignored it because there is no such law and answering this question also destroys your claim.

On the casualty figures, look them up. Counting battlefield deaths and sickness/disease does not get close to the numbers you claim with the exception of a few fringe estimates that were increased to account for error.

For example most estimates put the disease totals at 400,000 max for both sides with low end at about 250,000.

On the Supreme Court case you can try to dismiss it all you want but it is a FACT that it proves secession was illegal. All you can argue on that is hypothetical and opinion "the war was over" and they couldn't make the war meaningless. But that is not fact.



Facts beat opinions every time. When someone keeps ignoring facts and keeps repeating the same opinions over and over again that to me is lying. Sorry if that offends you.

---

Although I am aware it is a total waste of time…as you never alter your views on anything…....will go through my library and look up the the references regarding the legal position of the
succession. Not going to happen over night as I have bigger priorities; but will do so as time allows.

Broadly speaking southern states referred to the articles in the Constitution that not only guaranteed the right of slavery….but obligated all states to return fugitive slaves. Since northern states were not returning such slaves ( representing a huge financial loss to the owners ) the southern position was the Constitution, as a contract among , sovereign states had been repeatedly violated. And as with any other contract….failure to honor the terms of that contract permitted the termination of the contract by those same sovereign states.

Of course this will not satisfy you….. however will enjoy re reading the applicable works.

As far as whether or not it was an invasion……common sense would dictate that hundreds of thousands of southerners were willing to fight and die to protect their homes from the yankee hoard. This wasn't a football contest ….or some social phenomenon; rather it was a natural response to a huge, physical and financial threat.

Keep in mind Virginia , Tennessee and North Carolina only left the Union AFTER Lincoln had called for the mobilization of 75,000 men. Obviously the people in these states were responding to the threat of invasion.

Since you persist with the insults…..can only wonder if such an attitude contributes to your dramatic business and financial success.

Will continue our discussion when I have pertinent references.

Have a nice day.

---

You guys may find this site useful, it has the succeeding Declaration of Causes for the States, they appear verbatim.

Maybe their own words will put some finality to it. I was surprised reading them...


The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States | American Battlefield Trust

---

Intersting resource......thank you......will certainly study it when possible.

Was motivated by this 'discussion' to check in my office for appropiate books. To my chagrin discovered I gave several of the books needed to my nephew in Denver. ( it has long been my habit to give my best history books to friends and family ). Have since re ordered the books in question.

The good news was the discovery and order of two previously unpurchased biographies; regarding the confederate vice president and secretary of state. Always interesting to get still another perspective.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The North had a far larger population than the South.

And because .......membership in the house is determined by....you guessed it..... population....

The North ALREADY dominated the house.

Since there were not any further slave states possible to be admitted to the union......the north would dominate the senate as well. The North would have total control of the South's economic and political future.

You can argue the number of KIA's all you wish....but the civil war remains the deadliest in US history.
When including the huge number of yankees dying in the hot/humid climate of the deep south....yellow fever, malaria, typhoid, smallpox 500,000 is approachable.

Confederates lost approx 400,000 again mostly from disease.

States had the legal right to leave the union. which is why Davis and Lee were never tried for treason.And the SC did not make that ruling until the war was already won ( shocking right....imagine if the SC had ruled in favor of the south when the north had spent so much in blood ! )
Lincoln rejected compensation out of hand....Lincoln did NOT attack South Carolina after Fort Sumter surrendered. He mobilzed 75,000 troops and invaded Virgina, Missouri, and Maryland.

---

Making a long post full of lies doesn't change the facts.

The Supreme Court said that Congress could not determine slave or free state. That is fact.

I asked for specific laws I. Place that prevented new slave states. You gave none because there are none.

You can dismiss the Supreme Court ruling all you want but it is fact and proves there was no legal right to secede. You cannot point to any law, ruling or anything to back up your claim. All you have is you saying that.

States did not have a legal right to leave the union. Period. Provide a law or Supreme Court ruling stating otherwise or admit you are wrong.

They not being tried for treason is not proof of anything.

Your casualties numbers are wrong. There were not that many combined deaths.

Is the US invading itself with military bases in the states?

---

I don't appreciate you saying I am lying. I do not refer to you
In such a manner and it's just a matter of typing. So let's keep it civil or forget it.

The SC did not rule against the right of secession until 1869.
Texas vs White I believe .

Now think about it. The war has been over for several years but Federal bayonets still control Texas and several other southern states . Reconstruction is ongoing and a nightmare for the South and an embarrassment for the North.

Hundreds of thousands of Yankees died 'preserving the Union '. Many thousands more were crippled by wounds or illnesses. Do you really think ANY Supreme Court would then turn around and pronounce the war a fraud ? That everyone's 'noble dead' had been led to the killing fields on a lie ?

Of course not. The judges would have been immediately attacked or worse.

Not sure where you got your estimates …but when deaths from illnesses are included the numbers skyrocket. As they did in every war until WW2. In any case the casualties were catastrophic…..even more so when the relatively small populations of the North and South are taken into account.

Great Britain solved their slavery issue via compensation.
The US could have easily done the same; and in the process save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people , both North and South.

The slaves would have then be emancipated and just as importantly…..educated .. in an orderly fashion without the bitterness that came with the war and Reconstruction.

But Lincoln and the North had other goals.

And they accomplished them …and the results lasted for almost a century.

---

When you keep typing the same thing despite facts being presented to you, ignore other facts presented to you, and ignore questions asked of you I can only assume you are lying on purpose.

For example, I have asked multiple times about the invasion question. You have ignored it because it destroys your argument.

I have also asked multiple times about the law passed that prevented new slave states from being added. You have ignored it because there is no such law and answering this question also destroys your claim.

On the casualty figures, look them up. Counting battlefield deaths and sickness/disease does not get close to the numbers you claim with the exception of a few fringe estimates that were increased to account for error.

For example most estimates put the disease totals at 400,000 max for both sides with low end at about 250,000.

On the Supreme Court case you can try to dismiss it all you want but it is a FACT that it proves secession was illegal. All you can argue on that is hypothetical and opinion "the war was over" and they couldn't make the war meaningless. But that is not fact.



Facts beat opinions every time. When someone keeps ignoring facts and keeps repeating the same opinions over and over again that to me is lying. Sorry if that offends you.

---

Although I am aware it is a total waste of time…as you never alter your views on anything…....will go through my library and look up the the references regarding the legal position of the
succession. Not going to happen over night as I have bigger priorities; but will do so as time allows.

Broadly speaking southern states referred to the articles in the Constitution that not only guaranteed the right of slavery….but obligated all states to return fugitive slaves. Since northern states were not returning such slaves ( representing a huge financial loss to the owners ) the southern position was the Constitution, as a contract among , sovereign states had been repeatedly violated. And as with any other contract….failure to honor the terms of that contract permitted the termination of the contract by those same sovereign states.

Of course this will not satisfy you….. however will enjoy re reading the applicable works.

As far as whether or not it was an invasion……common sense would dictate that hundreds of thousands of southerners were willing to fight and die to protect their homes from the yankee hoard. This wasn't a football contest ….or some social phenomenon; rather it was a natural response to a huge, physical and financial threat.

Keep in mind Virginia , Tennessee and North Carolina only left the Union AFTER Lincoln had called for the mobilization of 75,000 men. Obviously the people in these states were responding to the threat of invasion.

Since you persist with the insults…..can only wonder if such an attitude contributes to your dramatic business and financial success.

Will continue our discussion when I have pertinent references.

Have a nice day.

---

You guys may find this site useful, it has the succeeding Declaration of Causes for the States, they appear verbatim.

Maybe their own words will put some finality to it. I was surprised reading them...


The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States | American Battlefield Trust

---

Intersting resource......thank you......will certainly study it when possible.

Was motivated by this 'discussion' to check in my office for appropiate books. To my chagrin discovered I gave several of the books needed to my nephew in Denver. ( it has long been my habit to give my best history books to friends and family ). Have since re ordered the books in question.

The good news was the discovery and order of two previously unpurchased biographies; regarding the confederate vice president and secretary of state. Always interesting to get still another perspective.

---

Yeah, living in the South there is a different perspective. I attached another resource in Savannah. Savannah is interesting because there are two Forts.

The first is Ft. Pulaski, which is a National Historic Site and run by the Park Service.
The second is Old Ft. Jackson, which is operated by the Coastal Heritage Society.

In the morning go to Ft Pulaski and watch their program. Then after lunch go to Old Ft Jackson and watch their program. You will get two different views on the Civil War, both can be documented.

One is the slavery cause.
One is the State's Rights and slavery was just the flash point.

Finally, hit Bay Street and go to Churchill's Pub to drink away the differences... Churchill's is a decent place to sit, eat and drink in neutral site. There are better restaurants and bars, but Churchill's is always lively. Bay Street is worth it.


Old Fort Jackson CHS
Fort Pulaski National Monument (U.S. National Park Service)
CHURCHILL'S, Savannah - Downtown - Restaurant Reviews, Photos & Reservations - Tripadvisor