A brief review of rights and Lincoln.

So you support the South, who supported slavery?

Failtroll is fail.

The war wasn't over slavery.  That issue was definitely a vehicle for contention that may have eventually lead up to the war, but that wasn't why it was fought.

Clearly you didn't read anything I said, as you've already made up your mind on the matter, just like so many other educated (read 'indoctrinated') people.
The problem with people today is that using force to reach your political or 'humanitarian' goals is acceptable.  This is because Lincoln is deified in American history texts, and you are taught to love the man from an early age.
It's often difficult for people to objectively look at the root of the problem, because on the face it's about slavery.  In reality, it was about the states' rights to do what they chose.  Whether or not slavery was right or wrong doesn't matter.  The fact of the matter is, the pro-slave south entered into an agreement, and slavery being legal was part of that agreement.  The federal government is not superior to the state governments, and thus any attempt to abridge this agreement was unconstitutional.  Since the nothern states decided they were going to change the rules on the south, the south left the union, in a peaceful manner.  They tried repeatedly for peace, but Lincoln wanted no part of it.

Additionally, if you objectively look at history, you'll see that even states that still had slavery didn't join the confederacy until after the war began.  Virginia is an example of this.  http://www.vahistorical.org/onthisday/21361.htm

You have to understand the utter loyalty to states vice the federal government in that period.  Take the case of General Robert E. Lee.  see:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#Civil_War
He wanted no part of fighting against the North, and would have likely fought against the Confederacy had Virginia not seceeded.  However, it was the man's undying loyalty to his State, no the federal government.

The civil war was an unconstitutional war.  Lincoln had no right to wage war against the south.

Quote from: Dino Piranha on April 03, 2010, 04:25:35 PM

So you support the South, who supported slavery?

Failtroll is fail.

The war wasn't over slavery.  That issue was definitely a vehicle for contention that may have eventually lead up to the war, but that wasn't why it was fought. There had been nothing in the constitution that said a state could not secede, but in the case

Clearly you didn't read anything I said, as you've already made up your mind on the matter, just like so many other educated (read 'indoctrinated') people.
The problem with people today is that using force to reach your political or 'humanitarian' goals is acceptable.  This is because Lincoln is deified in American history texts, and you are taught to love the man from an early age.
It's often difficult for people to objectively look at the root of the problem, because on the face it's about slavery.  In reality, it was about the states' rights to do what they chose.  Whether or not slavery was right or wrong doesn't matter.  The fact of the matter is, the pro-slave south entered into an agreement, and slavery being legal was part of that agreement.  The federal government is not superior to the state governments, and thus any attempt to abridge this agreement was unconstitutional.  Since the nothern states decided they were going to change the rules on the south, the south left the union, in a peaceful manner.  They tried repeatedly for peace, but Lincoln wanted no part of it.

Additionally, if you objectively look at history, you'll see that even states that still had slavery didn't join the confederacy until after the war began.  Virginia is an example of this.  http://www.vahistorical.org/onthisday/21361.htm

You have to understand the utter loyalty to states vice the federal government in that period.  Take the case of General Robert E. Lee.  see:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#Civil_War
He wanted no part of fighting against the North, and would have likely fought against the Confederacy had Virginia not seceeded.  However, it was the man's undying loyalty to his State, no the federal government.

The civil war was an unconstitutional war.  Lincoln had no right to wage war against the south.

no, the confederates fired first. The Union troops inside the fort were starving and pratically helpless against superior confederate forces. If they had desired a peaceful solution, they would have let the union troops starve tehmselves out provided the relief expidition failed to reach them for whatever reason. However, in the case of texas v. whitein 1869, the supreme court ruled that the constitution did not permit states to secede from the U.S. and that all legislation that enacted such a secession was null maintaing that texas had remained a state ever since it was first admitted to the union prior to the civil war. So that means it is unconstitutional for a state to secede from the union.

no, the confederates fired first. The Union troops inside the fort were starving and pratically helpless against superior confederate forces. If they had desired a peaceful solution, they would have let the union troops starve tehmselves out provided the relief expidition failed to reach them for whatever reason. However, in the case of texas v. whitein 1869, the supreme court ruled that the constitution did not permit states to secede from the U.S. and that all legislation that enacted such a secession was null maintaing that texas had remained a state ever since it was first admitted to the union prior to the civil war. So that means it is unconstitutional for a state to secede from the union.

Judicial review is not in the exclusive jurisdiction of the supreme court, so quote whatever case you like, it's not valid IMO.  Just because it's politically accepted doesn't make it right.
Yes, the confederates fired first.  I didn't dispute this.  Fact still stand that the federal government is inferior to the states, and as such, even if S.C. didn't leave the union, they had every right to reclaim their lands from the federal government, up to and including a fort where federal troops were illegally stationed.  If there are to be no standing armies, then how were there federal troops there in the first place?  It was an obvious act of aggression by the north.
Firing weapons is not the only act of war.

so the federal government doesn't have the right to defend it's citizens? if it did, a fort might have been useful off the shore of the mainland. one of the supreme court's duties is to interprit the constitution and declare any legislation as unconstitutional. it decided the succession was unconstitutional so that's that. why shouldn't there be any standing armies in the U.S.? It is the duty of congress to raise and support armies as well as to provide and maintain a navy.

Let's derail this thread now.

What's your favorite animal?

so the federal government doesn't have the right to defend it's citizens? if it did, a fort might have been useful off the shore of the mainland. one of the supreme court's duties is to interprit the constitution and declare any legislation as unconstitutional. it decided the succession was unconstitutional so that's that. why shouldn't there be any standing armies in the U.S.? It is the duty of congress to raise and support armies as well as to provide and maintain a navy.

The federal government wasn't defending it's citizens.  It was sending them into harm's way.
It is not one of the supreme court's duties to interprit the constitution.  This power was not delegated to the court anywhere.
Additionally, to raise and support armies was in support of a declaration of war.  Otherwise, it would have said "to provide and maintain a standing army."
The militia is for all other purposes of enforcing law, not armies.  Armies are only for war.
For a more indepth discussion on this idea, please visit the following: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp

See guys? This is how you easily pick out a troll and ignore him.

While i may not agree with THE BEST HISTORIANS AT THE TIME WHO FACTORED MORE DATA ON THE PRESIDENTS THAN YOU AND I WILL EVER SIFT THROUGH... i DO think you are a silly little twit.

Take care and please... PM me if you have anything further to say on the subject, as i wil not be checking this thread.

Firstly this is an appeal to authority. Secondly, history is not something that can be reduced to a mathematical equation of greatness. Lincoln has been all but deified, and all but a few historians will rationalize all his misdeeds, and the US public are not taught any of them in government schools.

Lincoln did not cause the war. the south saw his election as an attack on the institution of slavery. Remember that the confederates attacked fort sumter, their victory encouraged other states to seccede. Lincoln's goal as president was not to abolish slavery. however, the war it self gave him enough opportuniy to do so.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

For a longer heterodox view of Lincoln see this " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interview with DiLorenzo.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.  Excelent quote from Lincoln.

It's hard to forward information on this subject alone, as people already preconceived notions of what happened and why, whether or not they are based in reality.