Canada2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

The 'trigger ' for the civil war began years earlier with the increasingly shrill demands and actions of northern abolitionists .

Just one example : John Brown's raid at the Harpers Ferry arsenal was a bold attempt to incite and arm a slave insurrection. Many innocent people were killed .

When John Brown was widely acclaimed as a hero and martyr throughout the North, their response sent shock waves in the South . Adding to southerners perpetual fear of slave violence ....which was not at all unjustified.

Such a slave insurrection in Haiti resulted in the massacre of almost the entire white population of the island. A fact glossed over by US historians but well known by southerners of the time .

---

You make it sound like the abolitionists were wrong. "Shrill demands" seem to be the least the situation called for.

People who enslave other people should be in perpetual fear of slave violence. But it never really happened here, as Brown's futile raid proved.

As you previously remarked Slavery was an untenable institution. .It would have passed out via legislation in another 20-25 years. But the South decided to secede before then. The question Lincoln had to answer was whether we would be a union or not; it was a question he was presented, not one he asked for.

---

The abolitionists weren't wrong ...but they definitely inflamed the paranoia commonly found in the South .

Years of abolitionists rhetoric ( Uncles Toms Cabin ) Bloody Kansas , new 'free' states entering the Union increasing the political power of the north, John Browns raid and finally Lincoln's election.....the South panicked.

Remember Lincoln had several weeks to remove those Federal troops from Fort Sumner peacefully . South Carolina offered safe passage ( just as Texas gave safe passage to far more troops from their Comanche frontier ).

But Lincoln finally chose to send a squadron of Union ships loaded with reinforcements instead .

Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing .

It was a brilliant political move .

---

Read the book and tell me what you think then. It tells a different story.

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

The 'trigger ' for the civil war began years earlier with the increasingly shrill demands and actions of northern abolitionists .

Just one example : John Brown's raid at the Harpers Ferry arsenal was a bold attempt to incite and arm a slave insurrection. Many innocent people were killed .

When John Brown was widely acclaimed as a hero and martyr throughout the North, their response sent shock waves in the South . Adding to southerners perpetual fear of slave violence ....which was not at all unjustified.

Such a slave insurrection in Haiti resulted in the massacre of almost the entire white population of the island. A fact glossed over by US historians but well known by southerners of the time .

---

You make it sound like the abolitionists were wrong. "Shrill demands" seem to be the least the situation called for.

People who enslave other people should be in perpetual fear of slave violence. But it never really happened here, as Brown's futile raid proved.

As you previously remarked Slavery was an untenable institution. .It would have passed out via legislation in another 20-25 years. But the South decided to secede before then. The question Lincoln had to answer was whether we would be a union or not; it was a question he was presented, not one he asked for.

---

The abolitionists weren't wrong ...but they definitely inflamed the paranoia commonly found in the South .

Years of abolitionists rhetoric ( Uncles Toms Cabin ) Bloody Kansas , new 'free' states entering the Union increasing the political power of the north, John Browns raid and finally Lincoln's election.....the South panicked.

Remember Lincoln had several weeks to remove those Federal troops from Fort Sumner peacefully . South Carolina offered safe passage ( just as Texas gave safe passage to far more troops from their Comanche frontier ).

But Lincoln finally chose to send a squadron of Union ships loaded with reinforcements instead .

Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing .

It was a brilliant political move .

---

Read the book and tell me what you think then. It tells a different story.

---

Beschloss

Born in Chicago
Educated at :

Eaglebrook School ( private boarding school )
Phillips Academy Andover ( private university prep school )
Williams College ( private liberal arts college )
Harvard University ( majored in political science )
Harvard Business School ( MBA )



Worked for CNN
PBS
Sits on the advisory board to the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission

Awarded the ' Order of Lincoln ' by the Lincoln Academy of Illinois .

Oh yeah ...that such an individual would write a fair and balanced account of Abraham Lincoln and the South.

Who could possibly doubt it ?

Canada2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

The 'trigger ' for the civil war began years earlier with the increasingly shrill demands and actions of northern abolitionists .

Just one example : John Brown's raid at the Harpers Ferry arsenal was a bold attempt to incite and arm a slave insurrection. Many innocent people were killed .

When John Brown was widely acclaimed as a hero and martyr throughout the North, their response sent shock waves in the South . Adding to southerners perpetual fear of slave violence ....which was not at all unjustified.

Such a slave insurrection in Haiti resulted in the massacre of almost the entire white population of the island. A fact glossed over by US historians but well known by southerners of the time .

---

You make it sound like the abolitionists were wrong. "Shrill demands" seem to be the least the situation called for.

People who enslave other people should be in perpetual fear of slave violence. But it never really happened here, as Brown's futile raid proved.

As you previously remarked Slavery was an untenable institution. .It would have passed out via legislation in another 20-25 years. But the South decided to secede before then. The question Lincoln had to answer was whether we would be a union or not; it was a question he was presented, not one he asked for.

---

The abolitionists weren't wrong ...but they definitely inflamed the paranoia commonly found in the South .

Years of abolitionists rhetoric ( Uncles Toms Cabin ) Bloody Kansas , new 'free' states entering the Union increasing the political power of the north, John Browns raid and finally Lincoln's election.....the South panicked.

Remember Lincoln had several weeks to remove those Federal troops from Fort Sumner peacefully . South Carolina offered safe passage ( just as Texas gave safe passage to far more troops from their Comanche frontier ).

But Lincoln finally chose to send a squadron of Union ships loaded with reinforcements instead .

Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing .

It was a brilliant political move .

---

Read the book and tell me what you think then. It tells a different story.

---

Beschloss

Born in Chicago
Educated at :

Eaglebrook School ( private boarding school )
Phillips Academy Andover ( private university prep school )
Williams College ( private liberal arts college )
Harvard University ( majored in political science )
Harvard Business School ( MBA )



Worked for CNN
PBS
Sits on the advisory board to the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission

Awarded the ' Order of Lincoln ' by the Lincoln Academy of Illinois .

Oh yeah ...that such an individual would write a fair and balanced account of Abraham Lincoln and the South.

Who could possibly doubt it ?

---

You really have no capacity to listen to anything that doesn't confirm your worldview.

First, I don't understand the idea that we should ignore those people who excelled at our best schools. Let's celebrate mediocrity I guess.

Second, spending a lot of time studying Lincoln would seem to be a good thing for someone writing about Lincoln. But you view it as a negative?

Third, I told you that the book relies heavily on Anderson's own writings. It is worth it just for that.

Fourth, if you read it with an open mind and it doesn't move the needle for you, has it really hurt?

I've got a hard copy I'll send you if you want to read it.

Come on guy look at that bio.

Preppy from elementary school all the way through his entire life . It couldn't be any more northern preppy ...it's impossible.

And you seriously expect the man who sits on the Lincoln commission and gets the Lincoln award is going to write a book critical of LINCOLN ?

Give me a freaking break .

I'm not quite committed enough to face Apaches with infrared vision and rotary guns...

And I'm fresh out of hellfire missiles .....

corncob pipe said:

---

I'm not quite committed enough to face Apaches with infrared vision and rotary guns...

And I'm fresh out of hellfire missiles .....

---

Don't kid yourself Master of all Pipes, Pipe Master, Mister Pipester. Smoke Blower, Tonto, Kemosabe. You have plenty of hellfires hidden in those knickers.

Canada2017 said:

---

Beschloss

Born in Chicago
Educated at :

Eaglebrook School ( private boarding school )
Phillips Academy Andover ( private university prep school )
Williams College ( private liberal arts college )
Harvard University ( majored in political science )
Harvard Business School ( MBA )



Worked for CNN
PBS
Sits on the advisory board to the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission

Awarded the ' Order of Lincoln ' by the Lincoln Academy of Illinois .

Oh yeah ...that such an individual would write a fair and balanced account of Abraham Lincoln and the South.

Who could possibly doubt it ?

---

Abe Junior. You could not possible come up with a more sickening resume!

Where do we draw the line?

Do we take or want Nevada & Arizona? New Mexico?. Oklahoma? Do we take part of Colorado, all of Wyoming, Montana, ND, SD, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky & NC?

Canada2017 said:

---

Come on guy look at that bio.

Preppy from elementary school all the way through his entire life . It couldn't be any more northern preppy ...it's impossible.

And you seriously expect the man who sits on the Lincoln commission and gets the Lincoln award is going to write a book critical of LINCOLN ?

Give me a freaking break .

---

I guess you are so wise can judge a book by its cover.

You go on listening only to people you know you agree with. That way you can be certain you are right even when you are wrong. Pretty comfortable existence I guess.

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Come on guy look at that bio.

Preppy from elementary school all the way through his entire life . It couldn't be any more northern preppy ...it's impossible.

And you seriously expect the man who sits on the Lincoln commission and gets the Lincoln award is going to write a book critical of LINCOLN ?

Give me a freaking break .

---

I guess you are so wise can judge a book by its cover.

You go on listening only to people you know you agree with. That way you can be certain you are right even when you are wrong. Pretty comfortable existence I guess.

---

You just can't be that obtuse.

The guy sitting for years on the LINCOLN advisory board

Receives the LINCOLN award .

Is going to write a critical piece on Abraham Lincoln ?

It's ridiculous.

Canada2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Come on guy look at that bio.

Preppy from elementary school all the way through his entire life . It couldn't be any more northern preppy ...it's impossible.

And you seriously expect the man who sits on the Lincoln commission and gets the Lincoln award is going to write a book critical of LINCOLN ?

Give me a freaking break .

---

I guess you are so wise can judge a book by its cover.

You go on listening only to people you know you agree with. That way you can be certain you are right even when you are wrong. Pretty comfortable existence I guess.

---

You just can't be that obtuse.

The guy sitting for years on the LINCOLN advisory board

Receives the LINCOLN award .

Is going to write a critical piece on Abraham Lincoln.

It's ridiculous.

---

He didn't make up Anderson's letters.

BTW, the book isn't about Lincoln or the civil war. It is about how Presidents have taken our nation to war and in particular how we ignore the Constitution when that decision is made.

Starts with Madison and the War of 1812, with sections in Polk and the Mexican-American War, Lincoln and the Civil War, McKinley and the Spanish-American war, Wilson and WWI, FDR and WWII, Truman and Korea, Johnson/Nixon and Vietnam.

I'll make you a deal-I'll read anything you have that supports the theory that Lincoln instigated. The Civil War if you will read the relevant section of this book. We can compare notes.

Dude

If a guy grew up on a South Carolina plantation , was tutored by a wounded southern solder, went to Ol Miss for his BA...then on to the University of the South for his MA.

worked for Rush Limbaugh, the Southern Baptist Convention and Fox News

Sat for years on the Stone Mountain advisory board , then won an award from the Jefferson Davis Memorial Club

would you really expect the guy to write an unbiased book about Jefferson Davis ?

Of course not .

Canada2017 said:

---

Dude

If a guy grew up on a South Carolina plantation , was tutored by a wounded southern solder, went to Ol Miss for his BA...then on to the University of the South for his MA.

worked for Rush Limbaugh, the Southern Baptist Convention and Fox News

Sat for years on the Stone Mountain advisory board , then won an award from the Jefferson Davis Memorial Club

would you really expect the guy to write an unbiased book about Jefferson Davis ?

Of course not .

---

LMAO!

Canada2017 said:

---

Dude

If a guy grew up on a South Carolina plantation , was tutored by a wounded southern solder, went to Ol Miss for his BA...then on to the University of the South for his MA.

worked for Rush Limbaugh, the Southern Baptist Convention and Fox News

Sat for years on the Stone Mountain advisory board , then won an award from the Jefferson Davis Memorial Club

would you really expect the guy to write an unbiased book about Jefferson Davis ?

Of course not .

---

To summarize:

You won't cite any source on which you base your belief and you refuse to consider any source written by the "type of person" who you believe can't be fair.

That is the very definition of a someone talking out their a$$.

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Dude

If a guy grew up on a South Carolina plantation , was tutored by a wounded southern solder, went to Ol Miss for his BA...then on to the University of the South for his MA.

worked for Rush Limbaugh, the Southern Baptist Convention and Fox News

Sat for years on the Stone Mountain advisory board , then won an award from the Jefferson Davis Memorial Club

would you really expect the guy to write an unbiased book about Jefferson Davis ?

Of course not .

---

To summarize:

You won't cite any source on which you base your belief and you refuse to consider any source written by the "type of person" who you believe can't be fair.

That is the very definition of a someone talking out their a$$.

---

Or Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or Adam Schiff, for that matter.

Thee University said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Would be great if we could sell California to Mexico and New York to Canada. Not real sure what to do with Illinois.

---

Finally!

Someone who gets it.

And he even lives in Seguin!

---

Illinois...outside of Chicago...is filled with hard working conservative farm folks. Very similar to Indiana.

If in some magical world we had a two state solution to the "American problem"...Chicago's current citizens would have to be expelled to the other nation-state.

Basic population exchange.

They are basically new yorkers surrounded by an island of red Americans anyway.

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Dude

If a guy grew up on a South Carolina plantation , was tutored by a wounded southern solder, went to Ol Miss for his BA...then on to the University of the South for his MA.

worked for Rush Limbaugh, the Southern Baptist Convention and Fox News

Sat for years on the Stone Mountain advisory board , then won an award from the Jefferson Davis Memorial Club

would you really expect the guy to write an unbiased book about Jefferson Davis ?

Of course not .

---

To summarize:

You won't cite any source on which you base your belief and you refuse to consider any source written by the "type of person" who you believe can't be fair.

That is the very definition of a someone talking out their a$$.

---

chuckle

You and Jinx need to get a room.

Got the same ignorance-arrogance complex .

Canada2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Dude

If a guy grew up on a South Carolina plantation , was tutored by a wounded southern solder, went to Ol Miss for his BA...then on to the University of the South for his MA.

worked for Rush Limbaugh, the Southern Baptist Convention and Fox News

Sat for years on the Stone Mountain advisory board , then won an award from the Jefferson Davis Memorial Club

would you really expect the guy to write an unbiased book about Jefferson Davis ?

Of course not .

---

To summarize:

You won't cite any source on which you base your belief and you refuse to consider any source written by the "type of person" who you believe can't be fair.

That is the very definition of a someone talking out their a$$.

---

chuckle

You and Jinx need to get a room.

Got the same ignorance-arrogance complex .

---

Says a guy who relies solely on his personal opinion as the factual basis for his argument. Irony is pretty rich there.

I get a great giggle out of guys saying the guys who dehumanized a race, enslaved them, cut off their limbs, sold off their children and were willing to send their own to die in order to further this enterprise AND 10 years after the practice was ended did everything they could to legally put this practice back in place were mistreated.

tommie said:

---

I get a great giggle out of guys saying the guys who dehumanized a race, enslaved them, cut off their limbs, sold off their children and were willing to send their own to die in order to further this enterprise AND 10 years after the practice was ended did everything they could to legally put this practice back in place were mistreated.

---

I didn't see anyone try to defend Democrats in the Reconstruction in this thread.

tommie said:

---

I get a great giggle out of guys saying the guys who dehumanized a race, enslaved them, cut off their limbs, sold off their children and were willing to send their own to die in order to further this enterprise AND 10 years after the practice was ended did everything they could to legally put this practice back in place were mistreated.

---

I get a giggle how only certain aspects of history are mentioned .....determined by the particular social climate of the day .

Oldbear83 said:

---

tommie said:

---

I get a great giggle out of guys saying the guys who dehumanized a race, enslaved them, cut off their limbs, sold off their children and were willing to send their own to die in order to further this enterprise AND 10 years after the practice was ended did everything they could to legally put this practice back in place were mistreated.

---

I didn't see anyone try to defend Democrats in the Reconstruction in this thread.

---

What you want us to believe is all the Southern States (whom ALL vote Republican today) appreciate what Abe did?

tommie said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

tommie said:

---

I get a great giggle out of guys saying the guys who dehumanized a race, enslaved them, cut off their limbs, sold off their children and were willing to send their own to die in order to further this enterprise AND 10 years after the practice was ended did everything they could to legally put this practice back in place were mistreated.

---

I didn't see anyone try to defend Democrats in the Reconstruction in this thread.

---

What you want us to believe is all the Southern States (whom ALL vote Republican today) appreciate what Abe did?

---

Hey, my ancestors fought and died for the Union. Just trying to keep he discussion field level, though.

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

I get a great giggle out of guys saying the guys who dehumanized a race, enslaved them, cut off their limbs, sold off their children and were willing to send their own to die in order to further this enterprise AND 10 years after the practice was ended did everything they could to legally put this practice back in place were mistreated.

---

I get a giggle how only certain aspects of history are mentioned .....determined by the particular social climate of the day .

---

There's nothing new about the history. It's that Southerns tell a history that informed their atrocities but highlights what the north did. It's always been there. As is said "Winners wrote History".

Currently, in Texas, the History Books y'all about the Triangle Trade. Really?

The vast majority of history books barely touch on the hypocrisy and injustice inflicted on the South by the Republicans, Union army and carpetbaggers .

For a period far longer than the war itself .

And really that's unfortunate. Because much of what Texas is today has its roots in Reconstruction.

My friend this is a subject I would enjoy discussing with you for hours .

But pecking along on my cell phone just isn't the same !

Canada2017 said:

---

My friend this is a subject I would enjoy discussing with you for hours .

But pecking along on my cell phone just isn't the same !

---

We will. It'll be a great conversation. I'm looking forward to it post-Corona.

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

I get a great giggle out of guys saying the guys who dehumanized a race, enslaved them, cut off their limbs, sold off their children and were willing to send their own to die in order to further this enterprise AND 10 years after the practice was ended did everything they could to legally put this practice back in place were mistreated.

---

I get a giggle how only certain aspects of history are mentioned .....determined by the particular social climate of the day .

---

So which parts in the history of the American slave trade is he missing/misinterpreting? And given that half the country felt this a big enough issue to secede over and the other half to go to war over, I'd say the social climate, even then, was pretty split.

That would be really great .

Honest Abe the abolitionist?

Throughout the presidential campaign of 1860, then-candidate Abraham Lincoln had all but promised not to interfere with Southern slavery, which he reiterated in his first presidential inaugural address.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Furthermore, Lincoln promised to enforce the fugitive slave laws as president laws passed by Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the return of slaves who escaped from one state into another state or territory.

Southern secession would have made slavery more precarious without the protection of the Constitution and the Supreme Court. From a slave property standpoint, staying in the Union made more sense than leaving.

Adding further confusion are the numerous accounts from contemporary newspapers from the North, South, and Europe all of which tell the tale of a "tariff war," not the popularly-held notion that the Civil War was a "war against slavery."

It's too easy to assign blame for the Civil War on the South and slavery and intellectually lazy.

Like many other conflicts, the Civil War was decades in the making and the culmination of unresolved issues between the Northern and Southern states. And it finally came to a head during the 1860 presidential campaign and election.

In 1860, nearly all federal tax revenue was generated by tariffs there were no personal or corporate income taxes. And the Southern states were paying the majority (approximately eighty percent) of the tariffs with an impending new tariff that would nearly triple the rate of taxation.

Adding insult to injury, much of the tax revenues collected from imports in the South went to Northern industrial interests and had been for decades. The 1860 Republican platform promised more of the same, which was further eroding the trust of Southerners.

Remember that slave labor practices of the South contrasted greatly with the industries of the North. Without slave labor, most Southern plantations wouldn't have survived; there simply weren't enough workers. Slavery was inextricably linked to the South.

While the issue of slavery was, in fact, a primary concern for the South, the secessionist movement began decades before the Civil War.

In 1828, Congress passed a tariff of sixty-two percent which applied to nearly all imported goods. The purpose of the tariff was to protect Northern industries from low-priced imported goods. But it effectively increased the cost of goods for the South, which sans manufacturing capacity, relied heavily on imported goods.

At the same time, the tariff reduced the amount of British goods sold to the South, effectively making it more difficult for the British to pay for Southern cotton. It's no wonder the South would refer to the Tariff of 1828 as the "Tariff of Abominations."

The government of South Carolina declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, creating a precarious situation between the state and the federal government. Of little surprise, President Andrew Jackson refused to accept South Carolina's defiance. Without the Compromise Tariff of 1833, it's likely that South Carolina would have moved to secede from the Union.

More tariffs in 1842 and 1857 along with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision worked to further divide the country. In May of 1860, the House of Representatives passed the Morrill Tariff Bill, the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party and a priority for the soon-to-be-elected new president.

Charles Dickens, from his journal, All the Year Round, observed, "The last grievance of the South was the Morrill tariff, passed as an election bribe to the State of Pennsylvania, imposing, among other things, a duty of no less than fifty per cent on the importation of pig iron, in which that State is especially interested." (1)

At Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. "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 and black races," he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust.

For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonizationor the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central Americawas the best way to confront the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes, Henry Clay & Thomas Jefferson, had both favored colonization; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could live together peaceably. Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be "to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia" (the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821).

Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the "differences" between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be "better for us both, therefore, to be separated." Lincoln's support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly

This Canadian fellow is speculating out of his rear end and calling it fact. There is no actual evidence that Lincoln wanted to start the war at Fort Sumter. He was sending people there to reinforce it, and other forts, and certainly he was trying to provoke a response. The reason the Confederates attacked it first though, was because it was a somewhat unpredictable place to go after, and the Northerners wouldn't be expecting it so soon.

Basic history.

Nobody, I don't think, does a good job of legitimizing the Civil War, either from the North or South's perspective. It was not a good war from either side, but if the winner does write history, the abolishment of slavery was a worthwhile result. Freedom is a big deal in America, and after we finally gave all Americans basic freedoms, we began to truly embody the country our founders hoped to create.

Porteroso said:

---

There is no actual evidence that Lincoln wanted to start the war at Fort Sumter.

---

Sure there is evidence. Canada17 believes it happened that way.

Thee University said:

---

---

California, Colorado, New Mexico , Texas, Arizona

All going back to Mexico ...one way or another .

Canada needs to build their wall .