Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: Anyone else here hate Abraham Lincoln?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    32
    Thomas Aagaard

    And the last part is more BS.
    Please tell me who got the authority to change the makeup of the union?
    And then please explain how a US president can allow part of the union to break away without breaking his oath of office.


    Please explain why James Buchanan did nothing when the first state seceded. OH I KNOW WHY...because he looked at his constitution and realized there was nothing that said they COULD NOT SECEDE. Franklin Pierce was another president that openly sympathized with the Confederacy and saw nothing wrong with them legally forming their own nation.

    And to your BS about restructuring the Union, people had been doing that since the beginning. You seem to like precedence so you could look to the Louisiana Purchase (which northerners thought was unconstitutional and a waste of money for Jefferson's science experiments) , Texas American War (which some northerners also argued was over expanding slavery), etc...all of which resulted in presidents creating new territory, structuring new state lines, etc

  2. #12
    Tennessee_Volunteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by McMuffin View Post
    The south wanted to keep slavery, the civil war was about slavery. Go tell me how many times the word slavery comes up in the secession documents versus the word tariffs, I think in Georgia slavery comes up like 27-30 times.
    Slavery is obviously what stirred Southern elites and politicians to take the drastic actions that they did. But to say the war was only over slavery isn't fair. The best way to put it is as a war for Southern Independence. Slavery was the match that set off a powder keg. North and South prior to Lincoln's election were de facto 2 different states. Culturally and economically they operated on a very different level, and still do to this day.

    Without the issue of slavery, it's quite likely there wouldn't have been a war in 1861. But, how long could they live alongside one another? Would something else arise that could spark passions like the problem of slavery did? Would a Northern politician organize to undermine the South, or vice versa? Could a border dispute escalate? I don't know because the war happened as we know it, but I think these are legitimize questions. In my mind, a civil war with or without slavery was imminent. The Old South was determined to win independence or die.

    Loyalty to North or South is what ultimately caused legions to rise to the occasion, not necessarily slavery or abolition.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennessee_Volunteer View Post
    Slavery is obviously what stirred Southern elites and politicians to take the drastic actions that they did. But to say the war was only over slavery isn't fair. The best way to put it is as a war for Southern Independence. Slavery was the match that set off a powder keg. North and South prior to Lincoln's election were de facto 2 different states. Culturally and economically they operated on a very different level, and still do to this day.

    Without the issue of slavery, it's quite likely there wouldn't have been a war in 1861. But, how long could they live alongside one another? Would something else arise that could spark passions like the problem of slavery did? Would a Northern politician organize to undermine the South, or vice versa? Could a border dispute escalate? I don't know because the war happened as we know it, but I think these are legitimize questions. In my mind, a civil war with or without slavery was imminent. The Old South was determined to win independence or die.

    Loyalty to North or South is what ultimately caused legions to rise to the occasion, not necessarily slavery or abolition.
    You are correct, I should not have said it was solely about slavery. It was started over a few things but was drawn out for many reasons. The match that lit the fire of the Civil War was slavery, the wooden fuel was state loyalty. Plus, in the south they mainly saw a tyrannical government invading and killing their own citizens, those same southerners think “Hang on, I thought we just revolted against this” so it was much easier for the south to justify fighting so long. They would be just like their revolutionary forefathers, and maybe history would favor them and they’d win like last time! The North had the tough job of keeping troop morale up for the whole war and keep the troops as fierce fighting as the south. They had to justify going in, killing American citizens and destroying their land, American land. And they knew they looked like the oppressors that their founding fathers fought. Imagine having to keep that army in high spirits and fighting against the south with the justification of “Oh, we gotta keep the Union together...and uh, oh, slavery is bad!” Those weren’t good enough reasons to justify these men seeing companies of their comrades die in combat and stay loyal for reasons they don’t care about.

    And I think that as the Northern states became more and more industrially differing from the south, and especially different on views on slavery, and southern exports of cotton and other products continued in Europe and the south became increasingly centered on exporting their agricultural products, it would just reinforce the thinking of both sides and eventually result in Civil War. Longevity and damage though is something that could vary. The Northern states had the mindset of (Lincoln also) slavery would be all or nothing, throughout the whole US or nowhere.
    Last edited by McMuffin; 12-01-2017 at 04:49 AM.

  4. #14
    OleSawedBones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    14
    Won't read the depth here but as I am going through 75% of Shelby Foote's Civil War Series there was some questionable things done by Lincoln(and the Union). Though I also read 12 Years A Slave and whoa. If you haven't(read it)

    I am ignorant ... I know I am but I feel there is righteousness in the Northern Cause. The War is Ghastly sitting on a table with your leg being sawed off so some Rich guy can keep his Wallet Chubby makes me sick to my stomach so bad... How any Southern Boy fought for what he thought was his SweetHeart and Land is interesting.

    Only the Ignorant and I am ignorant. So I suppose I would have up until a point.

  5. #15

    USA Lieutenant General

    Kane Kaizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Free Kansas
    Posts
    92
    The Lost Cause is a lost cause, my friend

  6. #16

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Younger Longest View Post
    The tariff was for nothing other than to enrich northern industry.
    ---
    And to the constant remarks about the treason and Hartford Convention not being a legitimate talk of secession, just look the document up on line...
    You do realize that the federal government had expenses?
    building and maintaining lighthouses, forts, the army, and actually running the government.

    And money had to come from some were. And since there was no income tax more than 90% of the Federal income was from the Tariffs.
    Tariffs where essential to funding the federal government.


    Hartford Convention - You made the claim, you prove it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Younger Longest View Post
    Thomas Aagaard


    Please explain why James Buchanan did nothing when the first state seceded.
    And again you show you lack of knowledge...

    For one thing he send supplies to fort Sumter... and then SC militia fired on that ship. (something I actually pointed out in my first post)
    2nd he clearly decided to leave the trouble to the next guy in officer.
    Also, Lincoln did the same "nothing" until the csa fired on a US fort on US soil.
    Why? because they both hoped that time would calm the situation and allow for a solution..
    (even after the fighting stated Lincoln prioritized getting troops to areas of unionism)

    The attack on the fort gave Lincoln the political and popular support needed to call out the militia.


    The make up of the union.
    You clearly don't know who can change the union...


    It is congress that change the makeup of the union.
    (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, of the Constitution)
    The Louisiana Purchase did not add any states by it self. Later bills in Congress did.
    (Louisiana did not become a state until April 30, 1812... that should make this clear to you)
    The same with adding Texas and the north western (Free) states. Congress added them to the union as states.


    And finally you obviously don't understand the difference between unilateral secession and secession with the consent of the other states.

    So you're telling me the 13 separate colonies can form a compact, fight a war over taxes and tea, then form a constitution between nine of them--but it was wrong for the South to have eleven states and try to form their own constitutional government?
    Yes, the founding fathers all knew that what they did was treason against the King.
    (They then formed a confederation. Then people realized that it did not work and made a much closer federation with Constitution... something you conveniently "forgot")
    Similar unilateral secession was unconstitutional and rebellion.


    Also you should really sit down and try get a basic understand on how the USA works structurally.
    Federal property belong to All the people of the USA. Some people in one states can't just decide that they want to take control of the local post office or mint.
    I get the feeling that you never studied any of this at all...


    And finally, you have not backed up any of you claims with any sources... primary or secondary... Looks like you are just repeating Lost cause myths you read on some random website.
    Last edited by thomas aagaard; 12-01-2017 at 12:33 PM.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  7. #17

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by OleSawedBones View Post
    Won't read the depth here but as I am going through 75% of Shelby Foote's Civil War Series there was some questionable things done by Lincoln(and the Union).
    They are a great narrative but they are not history books.

    A historian give sources for his claims and use footnotes. Foote didn't and is as such not an historian.
    And he make some claims that noone else can back up and he make some claims that is simply wrong.
    (Like Bufords men having repeaters at Gettysburg... a common myth)


    But yes, some questionable things was certainly done by Lincoln.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  8. #18

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravescot View Post
    :O is it the return of Vermont I see?
    No He was much better at giving sources for his claims.

    usually only with half the information, and many quotes was out of context, or misquotes...

    He actually had some knowledge about the topic... unlike this guy.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  9. #19

    USA Sergeant

    thomas aagaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Younger Longest View Post
    Just like America did to Great Britain. .
    You need to read a history book because that makes no sense.
    America did not secede from Great Britain.


    British subjects felt oppressed and tried repeatedly to get things changed.
    After a year of warfare between the colonialists and the British army they accepted that the king would never back down, so they declared their Independence.

    With the articles of confederation you can argue that the USA came into existence, but not until 1783 did this happen both de jury and de facto with the international recognition of the USA as an independent and sovereign state.

    So the people of the 13 colonies declared their independence... then later organized them self into a new state called the USA.
    Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    32
    Thomas Aagaard,

    You are cherry picking points of mine. I clearly mentioned the articles of confederation. As I said, if you read the text of the Articles, it says they were a "perpetual union." They scrapped the articles without the approval of all the states, that's why only nine originally signed the constitution, and that's why the constitution does not say "perpetual" anywhere in the text. The only reason you are saying secession is treason now is because the south lost. The War Between the States was a test of that idea, which was still very ambiguous and a real question up until that point.

    As to secession being any different from the revolution, you are also just ignorant and only looking at it from one side. When every southern state wrote their ordinances of secession, they were basically writing their own declarations of independence. Someone above mentioned slavery as a constant term being brought up by the southern states, WELL YES BECAUSE IT WAS CONSTIUTIONALLY LEGAL AT THE TIME. They also mention things like the extradition of John Brown, Lincoln's invasion, etc.

    You're not over here providing sources either. I'm not making any facts up, you are just refusing to open your mind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •