Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Abraham Lincoln's Crimes

When the states that made up the CSA seceded, they no longer had any rights granted to states under the constitution, as they were no longer part of the Union. You break a contract first, you don't get to complain about my not meeting my end of it.

A foreign power attacks a military installations of the USA on 4/12/1861.

USA defeats this foreign power.

USA, as the winner in this confict gets to write rules, and history.

Foreign power in this case, just happens to be the CSA.


*For the sake of argument, let's not consider the The Star of the West incident an act of aggression by a foreign power, but a bunch of rowdy school kids seriously acting out.



Regards,
Scott

In mid-east culture, not ours. Slavery had nearly died out in the southern states as well as the north in the late 1700s. Eli Whitney's invention made slavery very profitable in the south. Not so in the north, as cotton grew in southern climates.



Then why, pray tell, did Lincoln make the well known statement as follows?

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Slavery (as far as succession) was a big fish in a small lake, so to speak. There were lots of other reasons for succession too. But it had NOTHING at all to do with Lincoln's decision to force war on the south. That was a monetary decision, not a moral one.

Here's another quote by Abe.


When asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?"
Lincoln replied: "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"

Lincoln had to retain federal property in southern states in order to collect tariffs and duties on commodities coming from other countries, it's as simple as that.

Web Page Check out the "Lincoln Quotes".
7mm

If the South had won, then the right to secede would have been established without question. Just think about Texas seceding from the Confederacy when oil was discovered, so they would not have to pay taxes to the CSA. California seceding because it was too far from the East Coast. Or New York City seceding (they were threatening this in 1860). Or....?

Eventually the bickering would have cause some of these "countries" to make alliances with European countries for protection. We would have ended up like Central America.

It was only Lincoln who realized what the war was about. If we let the nation dissolve into banana republics, then the only democracy on earth at that time--the USA--would have failed. And government of the people, by the people, and for the people (democracy) would have perished from the earth.

That's what Lincoln was fighting against.

Lincoln's crimes? When he clapped the Maryland delegates into prison, to prevent Maryland from seceding, and the Supreme court ordered him to let them out, he disobeyed the court. "I would rather violate one of the laws than allow all of them to be violated."

We do not have leaders with courage any more. Lincoln was a giant, and if you seek his monument, just look about you.

I have never used the bible as an example here or in any BBS. The morality of which I speak is enschrined in the Declaration of Independance.

As to the biblically stupid comment it refers to the stupidity of Adam in eating the apple and getting Eve's nagging and bootted out of the Garden of Eden. It is a story in the Bible, you might read the story to understand the comment. Please note I ask you read the story not subscribe to the religion.

You fail the honesty test. Look very hard at population and GNP figures, then look very hard at the money tied up in slaves in the south vs. it's total wealth. Then look very hard at the battle about said slavery since the articles of confederation, and how that very subject nearly broke the Union before it was one. Go read the constitutions of the southern states and see just how prominently slavery is enschrined. Ignoring it's direct influence no matter how PC you are about it is a falsehood.

It's well known Lincoln was anti slavery personally and that he would have prefered to save the union without abolishing it had he been able politically to do so. Lincoln's earlier statements about that policy of his showed him neutral to the abolition, as he progressed he knew he must abolish it and his later statements and actions bear this out.

Without his actions the abolition would not have happened and we would not have the Nation we do today.

Scott, you couldn't be any more wrong!

Lincoln and the Federal Government went to great lengths in declaring this a "rebellion". That's why there was a "blockade" of southern ports, as opposed to declaring them "closed". It all has to do with avoiding European Powers granting "Belligerent Status" to the Confederacy, which may have lead to foreign recognition, or even intervention.

Indy, good post.



I never thought I'd be referred to as "PC"! As to the honesty test, I think that those who keep calling the Civil War a war over slavery, are failing it. true enough, slavery was protected under the Confederate Constitution, but that is side-stepping the facts that I have already laid out. When you can accurately refute those, then we can debate more.

But I think your mind is already made up, and my facts are wasted.
7mm

Slaves were owned property and (by definition) not wage earners so any "income" would have to be figured in the fair market value of housing, food, clothing, etc, divided by the number of hours worked and the types of jobs in which they were employed. No doubt many slaves enjoyed a far better existence than the denizens of New York's Irish slums, but any "government figures" as to per capita income would be highly suspect--and entirely beside the point.


Many illegal aliens are very much exploited. If not why have them here? Some meet the definition of indentured sevants by virtue of the fact that they owe large sums to the organized crime syndicates that get them here and must do whatever, for however long, until that debt is paid (if it ever is). Like chattel slavery the conditions of each individual illegal alien/indentured servant varies considerably depending upon who "owns" them and what they are required to do to repay their masters. Yeah, many come of their own free will but it is frequently a Hobson's choice.

Ah, but the CSA had seceded. So in their own minds, they were a sovereign power. And this sovereign power attacked another sovereign power. And was defeated.

Or you can call this a failed rebellion, with the emphasis on failed. Rebellions fail all the time. The winners get to make the rules in that case as well.

What I find most humorous, is that the strongest whiners regarding the of unfairness/illegality/unconstitutionality of "The War of Northern Aggression" are also the same voices that complain about the NAACP wanting Southern States to apologize for slavery.

This was all 140+ years ago, y'all need to get over it. Slaves and Rebels both.

And by the way, my personal opinion is that while the South may have had the right to secede, that it all went out the window when the cannonballs started to fly towards Fort Sumter. It's a pity that this right wasn't affirmed as part of a Supreme Court decision.

Regards,
Scott

<edit> Changed "found" to "affirmed"

I see I am not alone in my appreciation of this particular irony.

What you are saying sounds a little bit like the theory of "state suicide" advanced by some of the radical Republicans in the immediate post-war period. The theory basically said that the southern states had committed suicide by trying to secede and that if they wished to re-enter the union they'd have to start off as territories and go through the whole process of applying for statehood. It was an interesting idea, but in the end nobody followed up on it.

An excerpt from "The National Parks Conservation Association's" article on "Civil War Battlefields"



Americans continue to debate the reasons for the war-was it essentially a war over states' rights or a war over slavery? Lincoln was clear in the early years that it was a war over the sanctity of the Union; before the war, the government took no action to end slavery in the southern states, although the North and South fought bitterly over the practice of slavery in the fledgling territories. In the years before Lincoln took office, the South had ruled the federal government, and many perceived the southern states' move to secede as nothing more than sour grapes following a contentious election. But without the sanctity of the union, a state might defect anytime it disagreed with the majority, leaving the continent nothing more than a group of bickering autocracies. Lincoln made it clear that he was against slavery, but he had acknowledged that he would do whatever it took to keep the union together, whether that meant ending slavery or preserving it for the time being. But eventually, Lincoln recognized the ways in which the issues were inextricably linked, and saw that freeing the slaves might bolster his own army's numbers and demoralize the southern effort. So the Emancipation Proclamation, announced in 1862, combined the issues of unity and freedom where they had once been separate and distinct.

You're real fat

A lot of you big government boys will talk out of both ends in order to shore up your bankrupt arguments. The truth is, it can't be both ways. As was said, Lincoln went to great extremes to call this a "rebellion". As such, the participants, including President Davis, were due a fair trial and judgment by their peers. President Davis' right to a fair and speedy trial was never acknowledged. If as some of you assert, the South was a sovereign nation, then why did the North attack? Certainly Fort Sumter was on Southern territory and should have been vacated rather than defiantly occupied. Lincoln was about to reinforce and resupply it too. He knew no sovereign nation would allow a foreign army to occupy its territory-thus he forced the war.

You who support the big government asendency which WAS the "Civil War" probably support the view that the 2nd Amendment is a collective rather than individual right. If you don't, you might as well...

Y'all can call it whining if you want. I really don't give a chit.

This sums it up...

"Even before my father's father
They called us all rebels
While they burned our cornfields
And left our cities leveled"

Wasn't replying to PAbbott...don't know why it did that.

Scott, surely you don't suggest the CSA, as a sovereign nation, had an obligation to permit another nation to maintain a fort in one of its most important harbors. The act of war was Lincoln's refusal to cede the Charleston forts to the rightful government. Was he also planning to collect customs revenues?

You guys throw this damn yankee thing around pretty freely. Kinda pisses me off. Sore losers, I guess. I have a letter written by an ancestor of mine who fought in that war. He seemed to think it was to free the black man. That's good enough for me.Philosophy and hindsight are not bound by the reality of the present. Lets people really spout out a bunch of crap.

I guess my question then would be - who built that fort in Charleston? If the North did indeed provide for it financially - were they not entitled to some sort of compensation for the facility?

Not being an azz - simply asking the question - Say the North decided to allow the South to leave - could they not at the least expect some sort of compensation for the capital invested to make the South a viable "country". Ports, railroads etc?

Taken to it's end - Puerto Rico decides to enter the US as #51 - we dump a ton of capital in PR to bring it up to standards and then they decide to leave the US? We are gonna want some ROI. Kinda like getting a home equity loan - doing a full on restoration and then skiping on the payments and then getting mad when the bank wants the house back.

EDIT: I think it is then fair to say that the North had a right to "occupy" those posessions she felt were heres until compemnsation was made - firing on the fort probably wasn't in the best interest of the South - hindsight being what it is.

I know the answer from the South will be "South didn't get nothin from the North" I doubt this very seriously - if we intended to exploit the South - we HAD to have something invested at a minimum.

Just the same as intending to exploit a slave for labor - you HAD to buy the slave, food, etc thus an investment.

SteveNO and Ethan Edwards,

I argue that 1861 Sumter = 2007 Guantanamo Bay. Can either of you honestly say that an attack by Cuba on our installation in Cuba should be shrugged off?

What about attacks on US Embassies by the armed forces of foreign nations?

Ethan Edwards and others,

Jefferson Davis was detained in Federal facilities for taking up arms against the USA. A charge of treason was later dropped as the state didn't feel it could make the case. Should we now release all enemy combatants in detention centers unless we bring them to trial immediately? After all, some of them have been detained for more than double the time that Davis was.

Regards,
Scott