USS Doris Miller to be named USS Donald Trump instead?!?

10,026 Views | 154 Replies | Last: 9 days ago by Thee University
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
September 18, 1858 - "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white & black races"

Colonization - Lincoln's heroes, Henry Clay & Thomas Jefferson both favored colonization. Lincoln publicly advocated for colonization in 1852 & 1854. His first instinct he said was to free all slaves and send them to Liberia. In August of 1852 Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed black men & women at the White House in hopes of getting their support on a colonization plan in Central America. Mention of colonization was deleted from the Emancipation Proclamation in the final proclamation in January 1863.

BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

bear2be2 said:

Danielsjackson114 said:

Whatever makes liberal brain dead fools like yourself angry, I am for..


You all are keeping TDS alive

What a stupid way to view the world/go through life.

Unfortunately, that's been the entire Republican platform since 2016.

It's a shame what's become of a once-proud party.

And what's become of the party that believes men can have babies and can play in women's sports, and who has gleefully relinquished our country over to noncitizens and our muslim and marxist/communist enemies?

I'm just wondering, when you libs bash conservatism, if any rational, objective perspective exists at all.

And ironically, what he said isn't all that foolhardy - if you chose what to support based on what makes the left in this country angry, you're actually very likely to land on the correct view.

The great thing about not being beholden to either of our country's worthless, self-serving parties is you don't ever feel obligated to defend bull*****

You're all in cults.

To suggest that there's any kind of equivalence here is complete nonsense. One side has become bat shizzle insane and is so obsessed with anti-American, anti-western cultural hatred that it's actively trying to destroy our country from within, and is more than willing to hand power over to our enemies in order to accomplish it.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Feedemfishheads said:

Damn! Some of the TDS really is laughable. I could give 2 ****s either way. It's a name on a ship for crying out loud lmao! Y'all need to take 2 Midol for your cramps.


Yeah, so why change it to a sitting President? Something never done. Why? Waste of time and dishonors a true hero.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

bear2be2 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

bear2be2 said:

Danielsjackson114 said:

Whatever makes liberal brain dead fools like yourself angry, I am for..


You all are keeping TDS alive

What a stupid way to view the world/go through life.

Unfortunately, that's been the entire Republican platform since 2016.

It's a shame what's become of a once-proud party.

And what's become of the party that believes men can have babies and can play in women's sports, and who has gleefully relinquished our country over to noncitizens and our muslim and marxist/communist enemies?

I'm just wondering, when you libs bash conservatism, if any rational, objective perspective exists at all.

And ironically, what he said isn't all that foolhardy - if you chose what to support based on what makes the left in this country angry, you're actually very likely to land on the correct view.

The great thing about not being beholden to either of our country's worthless, self-serving parties is you don't ever feel obligated to defend bull*****

You're all in cults.

To suggest that there's any kind of equivalence here is complete nonsense. One side has become bat shizzle insane and is so obsessed with anti-American, anti-western cultural hatred that it's actively trying to destroy our country from within, and is more than willing to hand power over to our enemies in order to accomplish it.


Best description of MAGA I have read.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

bear2be2 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

bear2be2 said:

Danielsjackson114 said:

Whatever makes liberal brain dead fools like yourself angry, I am for..


You all are keeping TDS alive

What a stupid way to view the world/go through life.

Unfortunately, that's been the entire Republican platform since 2016.

It's a shame what's become of a once-proud party.

And what's become of the party that believes men can have babies and can play in women's sports, and who has gleefully relinquished our country over to noncitizens and our muslim and marxist/communist enemies?

I'm just wondering, when you libs bash conservatism, if any rational, objective perspective exists at all.

And ironically, what he said isn't all that foolhardy - if you chose what to support based on what makes the left in this country angry, you're actually very likely to land on the correct view.

The great thing about not being beholden to either of our country's worthless, self-serving parties is you don't ever feel obligated to defend bull*****

You're all in cults.

To suggest that there's any kind of equivalence here is complete nonsense. One side has become bat shizzle insane and is so obsessed with anti-American, anti-western cultural hatred that it's actively trying to destroy our country from within, and is more than willing to hand power over to our enemies in order to accomplish it.


Best description of MAGA I have read.
You never were big on facts or reality.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Danielsjackson114
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He said Trump Gold Cards were direct deposit into Trump's account
Danielsjackson114
How long do you want to ignore this user?
100% that is our resident lunatic liberals:

flunaticbear, Mitch bleeds blues, Hamas Harry aka Sam Lousery, 303bear, fubar, TexasLunatic, Tempus Rectum, etc

So much TDS they are willing to support axis powers to get rid of him

Hell, Flunaticbear said he was ready to go back to sleepy Joe because he was "safer"
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

I wouldn't name anything military after that draft dodging pansy-@$$. Dorie Miller was a true hero. If Donald Trump would have been on board Miller's ship and in his place he would have been down in the deepest recesses of the ship crying his pansy eyes out sucking on his thumb. No doubt he would have immediately hopped on board a Jap ship and joined the Japs for the remainder of the war. Remember, he was a Democrat for at least 8 years and likely more.

The LIAR in Chief is an embarrassment. What else is he trying to get his name, image & likeness on?

whoa. now the is quiet the switch! good on ya!
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"



To begin with. Redbrick is my dude. Looking forward to us catching up this fall. When I tell y'all this is a great mother. Trust me. Great dude.

You're right South was not fighting to end slavery. They (we) were attacked by the South. Why? Because they believed the Republicans were going to end slavery. Sometimes when it goes there, it goes there and you can't leave it (slavery) unaddressed. It was preemptive by the South. Although my parents were southerners, I'm not. So I don't get the attack on Ft. Sumpter. Even still, every article of succession clearly states the southern states wanted to maintain the rights to own people.

So, I'm married. My wife asks questions I never asked. I recently learned my mother knew people born into slavery. I'm blown away at how recent this all is. My mom never talks about 1930s Mississippi.

Back on track. Slavery never required the war. It did require a recognition of the humanity of us.
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

Chuckroast said:

ImABearToo said:

Thee's got a serious case of TDS. Hopefully he'll work through it soon. It can cause lasting mental problems if not dealt with quickly. I'm sure when he went in to see the doc for his BDS (Briles Derangement Syndrome), he was warned about developing TDS eventually.

I have to admit Trump's narcissism and Jedi-like ability to troll people can strike a nerve and won't be missed, but rather than obsess over it, it's better to recognize that his policies have been better for America than the alternative.

This is the ultimate bottom line for me. I don't care how you feel personally about Trump and/or his style - his policies beat the crap out of the alternative 24/7/365. If you need to be reminded, just think for a minute about what things were like under auto pen / oatmeal for brains from '21-'24.

They were pretty much like today for most people.
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The facts of the Doris Miller story are not near as compelling as the fiction.

A. Miller did NOT shoot down a Japanese plane with a heavy machine gun. As he was untrained on the weapon and was almost immediately removed from the gun after shooting wildly.

B. WAS the heavy weight boxing champ of the battleship and a known bully to other members of the crew.

C. DID offer aid to the fatally wounded captain of the ship.

D. WAS killed in combat years later ( along with hundreds of others ) when the escort carrier he was serving on was sunk.

E. The Navy had a horrible reputation with black Americans for its blatant / systematic racism. For decades the Navy had excluded almost all blacks from serving ( except in the mess room ). Advancement for black Americans was rare within the service and am unaware if there were any black officers on active duty at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack.

F. With the Navy now drawn into a Pacific Ocean war with Japan and an Atlantic Ocean war with Germany, the service desperately needed more manpower. especially loading and unloading cargo / munition ships. So it was considered expedient to make one of the Navy's few black sailors a 'hero' to induce recruiting among minorities.

G. Did Miller 'deserve' the Navy Cross ? Impossible to reasonably determine. However public relation concerns certainly played a part.

H. However he does not deserve to have a warship named after him ( obviously another public relations move ) more than the hundreds of other Navy Cross winners.
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"


The North was fighting a war to preserve the Union. The South was fighting a war to ensure that it could not be told what to do by other states. The South's biggest fear and the reason it went to war was that it would be told it could not allow slavery. You can semantic all you want, but the South seceded to protect its right to own slaves. Just about every Southern state and the Confederate leadership said exactly that.
Danielsjackson114
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RACISMMMMM FOR SPEAKING FACTS!!!!!!!!!

*some brain dead liberal on this board like Franky Galvin or Mitch bleeds blue*
Bearknuckle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

The facts of the Doris Miller story are not near as compelling as the fiction.

A. Miller did NOT shoot down a Japanese plane with a heavy machine gun. As he was untrained on the weapon and was almost immediately removed from the gun after shooting wildly.

B. WAS the heavy weight boxing champ of the battleship and a known bully to other members of the crew.

C. DID offer aid to the fatally wounded captain of the ship.

D. WAS killed in combat years later ( along with hundreds of others ) when the escort carrier he was serving on was sunk.

E. The Navy had a horrible reputation with black Americans for its blatant / systematic racism. For decades the Navy had excluded almost all blacks from serving ( except in the mess room ). Advancement for black Americans was rare within the service and am unaware if there were any black officers on active duty at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack.

F. With the Navy now drawn into a Pacific Ocean war with Japan and an Atlantic Ocean war with Germany, the service desperately needed more manpower. especially loading and unloading cargo / munition ships. So it was considered expedient to make one of the Navy's few black sailors a 'hero' to induce recruiting among minorities.

G. Did Miller 'deserve' the Navy Cross ? Impossible to reasonably determine. However public relation concerns certainly played a part.

H. However he does not deserve to have a warship named after him ( obviously another public relations move ) more than the hundreds of other Navy Cross winners.

Sources?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"


The North was fighting a war to preserve the Union. The South was fighting a war to ensure that it could not be told what to do by other states. The South's biggest fear and the reason it went to war was that it would be told it could not allow slavery. You can semantic all you want, but the South seceded to protect its right to own slaves. Just about every Southern state and the Confederate leadership said exactly that.

Yes, certainly always a fear of theirs....but not the only reason. And of course has been shown over and over that the North had no desire to end slavery in the South and never attempted to do so....in fact that went out of their way to offer to further put its protections in the Constitution.

[Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this Lincoln hoped to convince 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.]


So we could then say "slavery was a major cause of secession in the 1860"

Of course that does not mean the war was over slavery....the war was over keeping States in the Union...and the understandable idea from those States that this was tyranny and that they had every Constitutional and historic right to leave if they wanted and declare independence.

"The war was a war for the Union. There was room for honest differences of opinion and belief as to the right of states to withdraw from the Union. To be mistaken was human and not humiliation." Col. Charles A. Clark (Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic)

"The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced that our government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of these abolitionists, I pledge to you . . . I would resign and carry my sword to the other side" - U.S. Grant

"No one talks of the negro. The integrity of the Union and the relative power of state and general (federal) government are the issues in this war."-Gen. Sherman

"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

Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"


The North was fighting a war to preserve the Union. The South was fighting a war to ensure that it could not be told what to do by other states. The South's biggest fear and the reason it went to war was that it would be told it could not allow slavery. You can semantic all you want, but the South seceded to protect its right to own slaves. Just about every Southern state and the Confederate leadership said exactly that.

Yes, certainly always a fear of theirs....but not the only reason. And of course has been shown over and over that the North had no desire to end slavery in the South and never attempted to do so....in fact that went out of their way to offer to further put its protections in the Constitution.

[Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this Lincoln hoped to convince 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.]


So we could then say "slavery was a major cause of secession in the 1860"

Of course that does not mean the war was over slavery....the war was over keeping States in the Union...and the understandable idea from those States that this was tyranny and that they had every Constitutional and historic right to leave if they wanted and declare independence.

"The war was a war for the Union. There was room for honest differences of opinion and belief as to the right of states to withdraw from the Union. To be mistaken was human and not humiliation." Col. Charles A. Clark (Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic)

"The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced that our government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of these abolitionists, I pledge to you . . . I would resign and carry my sword to the other side" - U.S. Grant

"No one talks of the negro. The integrity of the Union and the relative power of state and general (federal) government are the issues in this war."-Gen. Sherman

"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



Yes, I said in the first sentence of my post what all your quites "prove." What you and other apologists do is to deflect the question from what was the South's motivation. It clearly was to ensure that slavery would continue. That might mean the Union was not as noble as many paint it, but it does not change the fact that the South ws inhumane and evil.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"


The North was fighting a war to preserve the Union. The South was fighting a war to ensure that it could not be told what to do by other states. The South's biggest fear and the reason it went to war was that it would be told it could not allow slavery. You can semantic all you want, but the South seceded to protect its right to own slaves. Just about every Southern state and the Confederate leadership said exactly that.

Yes, certainly always a fear of theirs....but not the only reason. And of course has been shown over and over that the North had no desire to end slavery in the South and never attempted to do so....in fact that went out of their way to offer to further put its protections in the Constitution.

[Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this Lincoln hoped to convince 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.]


So we could then say "slavery was a major cause of secession in the 1860"

Of course that does not mean the war was over slavery....the war was over keeping States in the Union...and the understandable idea from those States that this was tyranny and that they had every Constitutional and historic right to leave if they wanted and declare independence.

"The war was a war for the Union. There was room for honest differences of opinion and belief as to the right of states to withdraw from the Union. To be mistaken was human and not humiliation." Col. Charles A. Clark (Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic)

"The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced that our government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of these abolitionists, I pledge to you . . . I would resign and carry my sword to the other side" - U.S. Grant

"No one talks of the negro. The integrity of the Union and the relative power of state and general (federal) government are the issues in this war."-Gen. Sherman

"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



Yes, I said in the first sentence of my post what all your quites "prove." What you and other apologists do is to deflect the question from what was the South's motivation.


Well I don't think that is true....nor do l think its fair to call me an "apologist"...I am simply just a person who takes offense to obvious lies and easy to disprove propaganda history

And of course a slave holding upper class is always going to voice clear support for slavery and be particularly tender to any perceived future threat.

But the motivation of the South's secession was more than just slavery (protecting if from long term future political threats). Tariffs/taxes, culture, desire for self government, etc.

Contrasted with the North....who had their own various motives in the war…but had zero to do with liberating slaves.

(Constitution-Union, Tariffs, and future geopolitical power were the issues)

"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 natives of the South and will convince them"-Gen. Sherman

[The official story that the war was about the South's desire to protect and expand slavery and the North's determination to abolish it is not merely an error in academic history. The evidence against it has not been ignored so much as it has been suppressed. It had to be suppressed because it contradicts the legitimizing myth of the centralized national regime that emerged after the war. Having been repeated so often it has come to be believed because of repetition."~ Robert Penn Warren

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken

Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"



.

Back on track. Slavery never required the war. It did require a recognition of the humanity of us.

I think we would all like to think so...but as Brazil showed us when it ended slavery in the 1880s (the largest slave state in the Americas by slave population and by territorial size) it had more to do with the economics of slavery no longer working.

Wage labor is cheaper and more productive/effective than slave labor. (and less likely to revolt)

Same reason it went out in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere (that and British gun boats blowing up slave ships)
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"


The North was fighting a war to preserve the Union. The South was fighting a war to ensure that it could not be told what to do by other states. The South's biggest fear and the reason it went to war was that it would be told it could not allow slavery. You can semantic all you want, but the South seceded to protect its right to own slaves. Just about every Southern state and the Confederate leadership said exactly that.

Yes, certainly always a fear of theirs....but not the only reason. And of course has been shown over and over that the North had no desire to end slavery in the South and never attempted to do so....in fact that went out of their way to offer to further put its protections in the Constitution.

[Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this Lincoln hoped to convince 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.]


So we could then say "slavery was a major cause of secession in the 1860"

Of course that does not mean the war was over slavery....the war was over keeping States in the Union...and the understandable idea from those States that this was tyranny and that they had every Constitutional and historic right to leave if they wanted and declare independence.

"The war was a war for the Union. There was room for honest differences of opinion and belief as to the right of states to withdraw from the Union. To be mistaken was human and not humiliation." Col. Charles A. Clark (Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic)

"The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced that our government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of these abolitionists, I pledge to you . . . I would resign and carry my sword to the other side" - U.S. Grant

"No one talks of the negro. The integrity of the Union and the relative power of state and general (federal) government are the issues in this war."-Gen. Sherman

"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



Yes, I said in the first sentence of my post what all your quites "prove." What you and other apologists do is to deflect the question from what was the South's motivation.


Well I don't think that is true....nor do l think its fair to call me an "apologist"...I am simply just a person who takes offense to obvious lies and easy to disprove propaganda history

And of course a slave holding upper class is always going to voice clear support for slavery and be particularly tender to any perceived future threat.

But the motivation of the South's secession was more than just slavery (protecting if from long term future political threats). Tariffs/taxes, culture, desire for self government, etc.

Contrasted with the North....who had their own various motives in the war…but had zero to do with liberating slaves.

(Constitution-Union, Tariffs, and future geopolitical power were the issues)

"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 natives of the South and will convince them"-Gen. Sherman

[The official story that the war was about the South's desire to protect and expand slavery and the North's determination to abolish it is not merely an error in academic history. The evidence against it has not been ignored so much as it has been suppressed. It had to be suppressed because it contradicts the legitimizing myth of the centralized national regime that emerged after the war. Having been repeated so often it has come to be believed because of repetition."~ Robert Penn Warren

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken



Again, semantics. The South fought to ensure the right to enslave human beings. But for that cause, there would have been no war. It is not complicated, but rationalization is to be expected because it was so horrible.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

FLBear5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

bear2be2 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

bear2be2 said:

Danielsjackson114 said:

Whatever makes liberal brain dead fools like yourself angry, I am for..


You all are keeping TDS alive

What a stupid way to view the world/go through life.

Unfortunately, that's been the entire Republican platform since 2016.

It's a shame what's become of a once-proud party.

And what's become of the party that believes men can have babies and can play in women's sports, and who has gleefully relinquished our country over to noncitizens and our muslim and marxist/communist enemies?

I'm just wondering, when you libs bash conservatism, if any rational, objective perspective exists at all.

And ironically, what he said isn't all that foolhardy - if you chose what to support based on what makes the left in this country angry, you're actually very likely to land on the correct view.

The great thing about not being beholden to either of our country's worthless, self-serving parties is you don't ever feel obligated to defend bull*****

You're all in cults.

To suggest that there's any kind of equivalence here is complete nonsense. One side has become bat shizzle insane and is so obsessed with anti-American, anti-western cultural hatred that it's actively trying to destroy our country from within, and is more than willing to hand power over to our enemies in order to accomplish it.


Best description of MAGA I have read.

You never were big on facts or reality.

Trump sure seems to be embracing Western nations, just ask Canada, Europe, Scandanavia...
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"


The North was fighting a war to preserve the Union. The South was fighting a war to ensure that it could not be told what to do by other states. The South's biggest fear and the reason it went to war was that it would be told it could not allow slavery. You can semantic all you want, but the South seceded to protect its right to own slaves. Just about every Southern state and the Confederate leadership said exactly that.

Yes, certainly always a fear of theirs....but not the only reason. And of course has been shown over and over that the North had no desire to end slavery in the South and never attempted to do so....in fact that went out of their way to offer to further put its protections in the Constitution.

[Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this Lincoln hoped to convince 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.]


So we could then say "slavery was a major cause of secession in the 1860"

Of course that does not mean the war was over slavery....the war was over keeping States in the Union...and the understandable idea from those States that this was tyranny and that they had every Constitutional and historic right to leave if they wanted and declare independence.

"The war was a war for the Union. There was room for honest differences of opinion and belief as to the right of states to withdraw from the Union. To be mistaken was human and not humiliation." Col. Charles A. Clark (Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic)

"The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced that our government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of these abolitionists, I pledge to you . . . I would resign and carry my sword to the other side" - U.S. Grant

"No one talks of the negro. The integrity of the Union and the relative power of state and general (federal) government are the issues in this war."-Gen. Sherman

"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



Yes, I said in the first sentence of my post what all your quites "prove." What you and other apologists do is to deflect the question from what was the South's motivation.


Well I don't think that is true....nor do l think its fair to call me an "apologist"...I am simply just a person who takes offense to obvious lies and easy to disprove propaganda history

And of course a slave holding upper class is always going to voice clear support for slavery and be particularly tender to any perceived future threat.

But the motivation of the South's secession was more than just slavery (protecting if from long term future political threats). Tariffs/taxes, culture, desire for self government, etc.

Contrasted with the North....who had their own various motives in the war…but had zero to do with liberating slaves.

(Constitution-Union, Tariffs, and future geopolitical power were the issues)

"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 natives of the South and will convince them"-Gen. Sherman

[The official story that the war was about the South's desire to protect and expand slavery and the North's determination to abolish it is not merely an error in academic history. The evidence against it has not been ignored so much as it has been suppressed. It had to be suppressed because it contradicts the legitimizing myth of the centralized national regime that emerged after the war. Having been repeated so often it has come to be believed because of repetition."~ Robert Penn Warren

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken



Again, semantics. The South fought to ensure the right to enslave human beings.


But they didn't....that is the whole point.

The North was not trying to take away the right to own slaves, allowed slaving holding through the war in the Union areas, and was willing to sink a Constitutional amendment protecting slavery even deeper into the Constitution.

The South was fighting for its own new Union and to get out of the old Union....the North was fighting to keep the Southern States in the current Union.

"Upon Lincoln's call to arms to coerce the seceding states Virginia made without hesitation the choice which she was so heroically to sustain. Virginia would not fight on the issue of slavery, but stood firm on the constitutional ground that every state in the Union enjoyed sovereign rights" -Winston Churchill

"President 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
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not really sure why this is complicated.

The Confederacy was formed for myriad reasons, including slavery.

The United States started the war to preserve the union.

To explain the obvious:
- Secession not slavery was the catalyst for the war
- Hint (otherwise they would have invaded before to end slavery)
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"


The North was fighting a war to preserve the Union. The South was fighting a war to ensure that it could not be told what to do by other states. The South's biggest fear and the reason it went to war was that it would be told it could not allow slavery. You can semantic all you want, but the South seceded to protect its right to own slaves. Just about every Southern state and the Confederate leadership said exactly that.

Yes, certainly always a fear of theirs....but not the only reason. And of course has been shown over and over that the North had no desire to end slavery in the South and never attempted to do so....in fact that went out of their way to offer to further put its protections in the Constitution.

[Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this Lincoln hoped to convince 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.]


So we could then say "slavery was a major cause of secession in the 1860"

Of course that does not mean the war was over slavery....the war was over keeping States in the Union...and the understandable idea from those States that this was tyranny and that they had every Constitutional and historic right to leave if they wanted and declare independence.

"The war was a war for the Union. There was room for honest differences of opinion and belief as to the right of states to withdraw from the Union. To be mistaken was human and not humiliation." Col. Charles A. Clark (Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic)

"The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced that our government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of these abolitionists, I pledge to you . . . I would resign and carry my sword to the other side" - U.S. Grant

"No one talks of the negro. The integrity of the Union and the relative power of state and general (federal) government are the issues in this war."-Gen. Sherman

"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



Yes, I said in the first sentence of my post what all your quites "prove." What you and other apologists do is to deflect the question from what was the South's motivation.


Well I don't think that is true....nor do l think its fair to call me an "apologist"...I am simply just a person who takes offense to obvious lies and easy to disprove propaganda history

And of course a slave holding upper class is always going to voice clear support for slavery and be particularly tender to any perceived future threat.

But the motivation of the South's secession was more than just slavery (protecting if from long term future political threats). Tariffs/taxes, culture, desire for self government, etc.

Contrasted with the North....who had their own various motives in the war…but had zero to do with liberating slaves.

(Constitution-Union, Tariffs, and future geopolitical power were the issues)

"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 natives of the South and will convince them"-Gen. Sherman

[The official story that the war was about the South's desire to protect and expand slavery and the North's determination to abolish it is not merely an error in academic history. The evidence against it has not been ignored so much as it has been suppressed. It had to be suppressed because it contradicts the legitimizing myth of the centralized national regime that emerged after the war. Having been repeated so often it has come to be believed because of repetition."~ Robert Penn Warren

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken



Again, semantics. The South fought to ensure the right to enslave human beings.


But they didn't....that is the whole point.

The North was not trying to take away the right to own slaves, allowed slaving holding through the war in the Union areas, and was willing to sink a Constitutional amendment protecting slavery even deeper into the Constitution.

The South was fighting for its own new Union and to get out of the old Union....the North was fighting to keep the Southern States in the current Union.

"Upon Lincoln's call to arms to coerce the seceding states Virginia made without hesitation the choice which she was so heroically to sustain. Virginia would not fight on the issue of slavery, but stood firm on the constitutional ground that every state in the Union enjoyed sovereign rights" -Winston Churchill

"President 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

The South was fighting for its own new Union and to get out of the old Union.. so it could be assured of the right to hold slaves.

You are again focusing on the North's motives. The South left to protect the right to own slaves. Any other narrative is revisionist and untrue.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Thee University said:

Bearknuckle said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Why not just rename the Abraham Lincoln the USS Donald J Trump? It would name a ship after the greatest Republican president instead of second or third depending on your rankings.



Personally I just like the idea of naming ships and bases after actual rank and file service members (the ones doing the actual fighting and dying)

Lincoln, Trump, Obama, Biden....and all the other Presidents and Politicians....they all get plenty of historical markers, statues, Presidential libraries, and accolades

Ships and Bases should be named after the regular folks who serve and do something worth remembering.

I mean, Lincoln did die for the cause, though.

(Why is there no USS GARFIELD?!?)

Lincoln? The man who sacrificed around 750,000 Americans?

isn't it amazing how the "victors" get to write so much of the history books.


Not everyone ended slavery with war. Some countries ended slavery by passing laws. For some reason, wealthy southerners thought it to be a good idea to send their boys off to die so that they could maintain ownership of people.


The North was not fighting a war to end slavery…slavery was protected by the law, and no law to abolish slavery across the Union had ever been proposed in the U.S. Congress. So the South was not fighting a war to keep slaves when no one was trying to take them away

False reading of the civil war

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861: "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"


The North was fighting a war to preserve the Union. The South was fighting a war to ensure that it could not be told what to do by other states. The South's biggest fear and the reason it went to war was that it would be told it could not allow slavery. You can semantic all you want, but the South seceded to protect its right to own slaves. Just about every Southern state and the Confederate leadership said exactly that.

Yes, certainly always a fear of theirs....but not the only reason. And of course has been shown over and over that the North had no desire to end slavery in the South and never attempted to do so....in fact that went out of their way to offer to further put its protections in the Constitution.

[Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment, through this Lincoln hoped to convince 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.]


So we could then say "slavery was a major cause of secession in the 1860"

Of course that does not mean the war was over slavery....the war was over keeping States in the Union...and the understandable idea from those States that this was tyranny and that they had every Constitutional and historic right to leave if they wanted and declare independence.

"The war was a war for the Union. There was room for honest differences of opinion and belief as to the right of states to withdraw from the Union. To be mistaken was human and not humiliation." Col. Charles A. Clark (Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic)

"The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced that our government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of these abolitionists, I pledge to you . . . I would resign and carry my sword to the other side" - U.S. Grant

"No one talks of the negro. The integrity of the Union and the relative power of state and general (federal) government are the issues in this war."-Gen. Sherman

"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



Yes, I said in the first sentence of my post what all your quites "prove." What you and other apologists do is to deflect the question from what was the South's motivation.


Well I don't think that is true....nor do l think its fair to call me an "apologist"...I am simply just a person who takes offense to obvious lies and easy to disprove propaganda history

And of course a slave holding upper class is always going to voice clear support for slavery and be particularly tender to any perceived future threat.

But the motivation of the South's secession was more than just slavery (protecting if from long term future political threats). Tariffs/taxes, culture, desire for self government, etc.

Contrasted with the North....who had their own various motives in the war…but had zero to do with liberating slaves.

(Constitution-Union, Tariffs, and future geopolitical power were the issues)

"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 natives of the South and will convince them"-Gen. Sherman

[The official story that the war was about the South's desire to protect and expand slavery and the North's determination to abolish it is not merely an error in academic history. The evidence against it has not been ignored so much as it has been suppressed. It had to be suppressed because it contradicts the legitimizing myth of the centralized national regime that emerged after the war. Having been repeated so often it has come to be believed because of repetition."~ Robert Penn Warren

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken



Again, semantics. The South fought to ensure the right to enslave human beings.


But they didn't....that is the whole point.

The North was not trying to take away the right to own slaves, allowed slaving holding through the war in the Union areas, and was willing to sink a Constitutional amendment protecting slavery even deeper into the Constitution.

The South was fighting for its own new Union and to get out of the old Union....the North was fighting to keep the Southern States in the current Union.

"Upon Lincoln's call to arms to coerce the seceding states Virginia made without hesitation the choice which she was so heroically to sustain. Virginia would not fight on the issue of slavery, but stood firm on the constitutional ground that every state in the Union enjoyed sovereign rights" -Winston Churchill

"President 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

The South was fighting for its own new Union and to get out of the old Union.. so it could be assured of the right to hold slaves.




That right was already protected by the U.S. Constitution.

And the North passed a new stronger amendment to protect it more....forever from any interference.

["Lincoln himself supported the Corwin amendment...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.]

"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 to let the slavery of the other states alone." -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

"Neither I nor, any other Republican, so far as I know, proposes any interference with slavery in any State. What we demand is, that slavery shall not be extended or permitted in any territory outside of slave States"-Salmon P. Chase (R-OH)

"Slavery was protected by our Constitution in every State in the Union where it existed. While they remained under that protection no power in the federal Government could abolish slavery."-Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) 9/7/1865

"I make no war upon the South nor upon slavery in the South. I have no squeamish sensitiveness upon the subject of slavery, nor morbid sympathy for the slave. I plead the cause of the rights of white freemen."-Sen. David Wilmot

"We denounce the assertion that slavery is the cause of our present troubles, as a libel upon the framers of our constitution & repugnant to the facts of our National history."-Indiana General Assembly, 3/7/1863

[The Crittenden-Johnson Resolution was proposed in the U.S. Congress early in the War, as a conciliatory message to the slave states, assuring them that the Northern war effort was not aimed at interfering with their rights, but solely at restoring the Union. It was passed almost unanimously, with the North in a state of alarm after the shock-defeat of 1st Bull Run/Manassas. Introduced as the War Aims Resolution, the bill defined limited conservative goals for the Union effort during the War. The resolution intended that the Union Government would take no actions against the institution of slavery. Its second clause discussed below stated the war was fought not for "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. It passed the House 119-2 and the Senate passed the entire resolution 30-5.]

"All parties affirm that Congress has no power to abolish slavery in any of the 15 States, nor to establish it in either of the 18 States; & that it has no right to interfere with that subject directly or indirectly in either of the States." -Sen. John Sherman, (R-OH) 1/18/1861

"It is false that slavery is the cause of the present unfortunate condition of things. The cause does not lie there; it lies in another place. The mischievous acts of the abolitionists is but one cause, and not the only cause" - Illinois Senator William A. Richardson

"We are for...not interfering with slavery where it is...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) Author of the 13th amendment

"Slavery, of itself & for itself, is not the cause of the rebellion. I do not believe that there was one intelligent, leading, & thinking man in the South, when this rebellion broke out, who imagined that slavery was in any kind of danger..."-John Pendleton Kennedy
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't we have bigger things to tend to....like a war we are losing!
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

Mississippi

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

South Carolina

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Texas

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

Virginia

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The United States Navy credited Doris Miller with one kill. Eyewitnesses (and Miller himself) thought it was four to six.

Don't know about the other claims, but that is on record.
Danielsjackson114
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So pretty much this was DEI before it was coined
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.



I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"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

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government 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
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
paint that sum buck Orange - and javv the Sweet Great Man dancing on the front deck to YMCA as it patrols the Strait of Trump here soon as Victory - Complete Total Sweet Victory is dadgum plumb Nigh.....................

- el UF

D!

Go Bears!!

Beat The Tigers!!

Go Kurds Go!!!
Go Bears!
Frank Galvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.



I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"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

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government 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

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.



I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"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

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government 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

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.


1. These are not semantics they are important distinctions you wish to gloss over

Virginia being a prime example of a State that left because the Federal government was using force and violating the Constitution in their eyes by using armed troops.

They were not seceding to protect slavery since it was already protected by the Constitution and laws of the Union

Now South Carolina a very different matter. Each state acted after its own internal logic and political desires or fears

2. Well that argument can be used to discount the American Revolution as well. And increasing it is…being framed by the modern far left as a "slavers rebellion" against British government

GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frank Galvin said:

Redbrickbear said:

Frank Galvin said:

Just like the colonies did with England, the seceding states listed the grievances that led to secession. The southerners said that the reason they were seceding was slavery, over and over. Don't know why you don't believe them now.



I never said it was not reason for secession

I said it was not a reason for fighting the war.

North or South....its fact that the issue of the fight was Union or Independence...not slavery

"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

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower one of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as many a monument to the dead declares, as just and even holy" -Prof. Morison, Harvard University.

"Once Lincoln called for troops, the secession of VA, NC, TN & AR was so certain that the Richmond government 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

And I said the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union--meaning to prevent secession. We agree on the semantics. But, unlike what you and others intimate, there is no moral equivalence there.

Any political group that wants to be free for the purpose of enslaving people is evil and illegitimate.

That is and always will be the Democrat party.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.