OK, we have established among those of us who are not in love with Abe Lincoln's memory that he invaded states. It is believed to collect funds. I submit had he never invaded VA, then other states, we would never be discussing some war aka the civil war. I see no way the South would have attacked the North to collect funds or seize property from the North. Lincoln showed a disinterest in slavery until he got the wise idea of the emancipation proclamation. Naturally it freed no slaves in southern lands.
Couldn't agree more. Compounding that is the false narrative that this was a victory that furthered our founders vision.
Anyone who does not see that the southern states seceded because of the opposition of the north to slavery... ...and that therefore the American Civil War was about slavery... ...is just kidding him or herself. But...there ARE people who want to kid themselves on issues like this...and that is allowed.
Frank would not be a good gauge. He refuses to reasonably answer these inquiry and declare as any American does regarding the logical structure of their most prime rights. As a Citizen of a state of the united states for America, do you understand, agree and accept then DECLARE it is constitutional intent that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to the ideal of our unalienable rights? As a Citizen of a state of the united states for America, do you understand, agree, accept then DECLARE it is constitutional intent that the ultimate purpose of free speech be to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to the ideal of our unalienable rights? He can be seen here, http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=481643&page=5&p=1066776221#post1066776221 Evading them again.
Apparently the only response you will consider "reasonable answers"...is a "YES." My response has been NO...right from the beginning. The fact that you want to dictate the answer to your question is YOUR problem.
Lol, that's like saying that a murderer killed 10 people but also had 10 children so you can't blame them for anything. - - - Updated - - - Well yea the keyword is that they banned the Slave Trade. They didn't ban slavery at all.
The war wasn't solely about slavery. It was really about the south believing in strict construction and the north believing in loose construction, the endless American battle. The south believed that anything not expressly stated as illegal in the US Constitution was therefore legal, slavery being one of those things not explicitly banned. The north thought that the Constitution was open for interpretation and that, because of amendments, you can really make anything legal or illegal so long as it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. Both are technically right. But slavery was the biggest controversial topic at that time that brought strict and loose construction up. So the war was technically about slavery, but is really about constitutional interpretation. Which is really what we still fight about today.
I did not say it was "solely" about slavery... ...but if the slavery question had not been present, there almost certainly would not have been any secession of the southern states. Read the articles of their secession. The ONE significant mention of them all...was slavery, slaveholding, and opposition of the Union to slavery. . It was about slavery. Respectfully as possible (you sound like an intelligent, reasonable person)...I suggest you give further consideration to the notion that without the element of slavery...no secession would have occurred...and no Civil War fought. The fact that we do still contend with regard to constitutional interpretation...but no states of the Union are currently in rebellion...speaks to that.
Now spelling is more important that the most prime constitutional rights. Ambiguity leaks from you posts. For example: you don't know, but no one else can and you post no other opinion but say its counter to what is logical and reasonable. Gatekeeping, cognitive infiltration. Lincoln said this in 1859 for a reason. the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court. Obviously, you are not one of the people, because they understand this and know the intent of it as well as the constitution which was derived from its intent. Vague, ambiguous evasive responses do not make you a real American. They identify you as a fake. There you go pretending other things are more important than constitutional intent again just like a covert agent would.
OK, I agree, It can be said that the Civil War was "about" slavery... It was 'about' the North still having slavery, while they invaded the South 'about' them having slavery.
Not at all...nor did I suggest otherwise. I quoted you exactly (actually cut and pasted your comments)....and that seems to be annoying you. Tough. No ambiguity whatever in my remarks. A NO...means NO. That doesn't make enough sense to say anything more about it other than, "That doesn't make any sense." Good for Lincoln. I agree. We are masters of the congress by electing the congress...and we are masters of the courts by electing the president, who, for the most part, appoints the judiciary. Stop with the blah, blah, blah. Your questions, which I answered NO...are absurd questions. Apparently you think they are exceptional. So...keep thinking that. Whatever floats yer boat. I am not a fake. I am a real American (born here)...and your characterizations of me are laughable. Try to get yourself under control. If you want to think I am a "covert agent"...knock yourself out. But understand I am not laughing with you...I am laughing at you.
I agree with the first part. The Civil War was "about" slavery. The second part, "It was 'about' the North still having slavery, while they invaded the South 'about' them having slavery" not so much. The North (the Union) went to war with the South because the South rebelled against the Union. You may be right that the Constitution does not expressedly forbid secession...but apparently that did not matter to the Union at that time. They considered the move to be one to be opposed. Anyway, the seceding states formed a confederacy...known as the Confederate States of America. The United States declared war on that confederacy; defeated it; and brought those states back into the Union. That's the way it goes with wars. There is a winner and a loser...and the winner gets to dictate terms.
You amaze me. You have commented over and over and over, like a broken record the war was about slavery. Abe invaded. To explain that is kind of silly. I have said secession was over slavery. The war was according to Abe over his notion the union had some magic size and he had to maintain that size.
Absolutely I agree with the winner dictating the terms. They also get to write their version of history. Lincoln may have been charged with treason, or war crimes, if the South had won. Some Southern leaders were arrested or indicted for treason after the war. But since secession was not prohibited by the Constitution, they could not be found guilty.
Since Abe invaded, I go with his claim. Abe alleged his purpose was this nebulous authority to force the voting public of the South to forfeit their freedom and he would force them using guns to submit to his will and then they would reunite. We see how well that worked out due to the current hatred of the South by people living in the North. It exists today. The public in the South for instance knew they left to keep slaves. When the south fought back, they did it to retain their freedom. I realize some will tell me slaves were not free. Admitted but with the caveat it was also legal to have slaves. Slaves were entirely legal in this country. To leave to keep a thing legal makes sense if you own a plantation. Abe did not invade VA due to slaves. Abe intended to subjugate the south and bend it to his will. I wouild not have such a hard heart against the man but for the fact out of all of this countries battles, that battle cost the most lives. Abe was stubborn. I call him a hot head. He was hardly in office and he called for 75,000 troops to assemble. Were a modern president to invade any state, i think the public would be furious. We have laws today to prevent presidents from invading states.
Robert...you wrote: I continue to defy you to show me telling you that "abe" invaded due to slavery! I NEVER told you that...I never wrote that. Period. Why not just acknowledge that you cannot find anything even remotely like that. The reason THE UNION invaded the south was because the southern states went into rebellion...and apparently THE UNION decided they were not going to stand for it. So...they invaded. They also won the war...and took the rebellious states back into the Union. Now...once again: You have asserted that I told you that Abraham Lincoln invaded the south due to slavery. I absolutely insist that I never did that. Work up the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that I did not.
I would like to ask you this Frank. What were individual Union soldiers fighting for? In your opinion. Would also like to hear anyone else's opinion...What were the individual soldiers, on one side, or the other, fighting for? Afterall, that's what the war was really about.
Opinion only! I think the soldiers of the Union were fighting because the president and the congress asked them to. Actually...required them to do so. Some managed to get out of fighting (and conscription) by paying others to fight for them. SOME may have been fighting because of a hatred of slavery, but I suspect the number fighting for that reason were probably in the minority. The north/south division had become manifest...and I have little doubt that some of the union soldiers were fighting because they enjoyed fighting...and because they viewed the conflict the way some sports fans view their favorite teams...in a "we can beat the crap out of THEM" way. I think the soldiers of the south were fighting for that latter reason. They (the soldiers of the confederacy) actually were fighting AGAINST their own best interests. If slavery did not exist, many of the poor white southerners would have been able to get jobs and earn a living. Fighting to maintain slavery made absolutely no sense for most of the fighting men of the south. Reminder: This is just an opinion.
People do not show up on forums to argue the merits of the revolutionary war that Washington fought. They will seldom get passionate over the Polk war waged on Mexico. This war evokes more passion than does the two world wars. Even Vietnam does not cause the fights the ACW causes. This is the Abe Lincoln legacy. Look how the Democrats utterly despise Bush. Those same people adore Abe Lincoln. And Abe killed far more American in the process
Well, if you understood the war, i accurately told you what happened when you said the invasion was due to slavery as the issue. And make no mistake, you have hammered home that point over and over. Maybe in your mind you did not realize what you were saying. That I can't comment on.
The issue in my opinion was over the right of the public to hold elections and have the majority decide the outcome. Far too many of the South to leave the union than accounted for over slavery. While they did wish to keep slavery. It could amount to how they feel about Auto Industry abandoning Detroit and Michigan. A feeling of loss. A feeling of let down. For the north to mandate to them a legal act made no sense to the South. It more than likely would have also made no sense to the North had they been allowed to vote on the issue. I wish more of you would visit the sites of those battles. To get the idea when you are 35 miles deep into VA to have Abe sending forces your way to kill you. Abe was wrong.
Thanks for your opinion on why soldiers fought the war. I agree that many Yankee soldiers indeed fought for those reasons. Would like to hear everyone's personal opinion on why they believe soldiers for either side fought. Well except for the poor soldiers from both sides who were drafted. Most volunteered.
