Abraham Lincoln vs Bahir Assad. Who Is Bloodier?

They were not new. Most had formed before the US. The US was originally called the united States of America not the United States of America.

We have covered that attack over and over. It was provoked

 

The South also mostly lost voting rights in Congress via sedition, so...

On July 4, 1861: Congress’s Summer Session at President Abraham Lincoln’s request, a special summer session of Congress - unusual in the 19th century - was convened with a prayer for “wisdom and…speed to their conclusions.” President Lincoln’s message to Congress explained the actions he had taken since the outbreak of the war that included calling up troops and instituting a naval blockade. Congress eventually authorized all of his actions and appropriated $500 million to put 500,000 Union soldiers in the field.

Prior to this, Lincoln relied on his power to call up a militia against an insurrection. So, yes, Lincoln did have Congressional approval. And the Constitution does allow this power to Congress, doesn't it? The Constitutional rights argument 1.) doesn't work and 2.) is irrelevant.

There also is the obvious that once the South was out of the Union - if it was - then the South no longer had anymore Constitutional protection against war than did Spain or Britain.

Thus, if the South HAD become a separate country, it was ENTIRELY Constitutional for Congress to authorize war against the Confederacy as a foreign power, which Congress exactly did. You do agree that Congress may authority money and soldiers for war against another country, don't you?

And since war is primarily how the USA became a country - against the Native Americans, Britain, Mexico and Spain to gain territory and expanded, obviously Congress could authorize war against the County of the Confederate States Of American (as you claim was a country) to conquer and take their territory too by war.

Seriously, the Southern leadership was REALLY stupid. By declaring to be an independent country, they gave the North power under the Constitution to go to war against them, and Congress did authorize doing so. SO, EITHER it was an insurrection - giving Lincoln the power to act independently - OR the South HAD become a foreign power, which allowed Congress to authorize military action against that foreign power - which Congress did.

If the South didn't want to pay tariffs, they should have just refused to do so. That would not have invoked either being an insurrection or allow the North going to war, would it have?

- - - Updated - - -

So what if it was "provoked." What's your point? The Southern super rich stupidly took the bait?

 

How did the North provoke the South? Tariffs? Tariffs are definitely Constitutional, yes (article 1, section eight). Since the average income of a Southern WHITE was nearly DOUBLE that of a free Northern, tariffs were certainly reasonable.

 

The USA was built upon wars to gain territory. Why would the USA not war to keep or retake the regions of the South? If the South HAD become a separate country, they were fair game, no different than Native Americans, Britain, Spain and Mexico. Or do you claim all white people should go back to Europe because taking territory by war is not allowed?

I think you will agree the USA treated Confederate civilians FAR better in war than the USA treated Native Americans civilians in war. The USA didn't relocate all Southerns to desolate land taking everything Southerns had and take the land all for Northerners either, did it? Didn't charge into Southern towns slaughtering every man, woman and child either.

 

Sending a fleet into the waters of Charleston with reinforcements after they were asked not to and to leave politely . Only 1 union soldier was killed in that battle and that was when they went to lower the flag the fired a cannon and he died from friendly fire

 

Jake, you've got the wrong read on Iraq.

Kuwait was part of Iraq until the 1920's when Britain lopped it off to deny Iraq access to the Persian Gulf.

During the Iraq/Iran war, Kuwait encroached on Iraq's territory and, using horizontal drilling, stole Iraq's oil.

The US basically gave Saddam a green light for his invasion, then decided to wipe out his army. The whole war would not have happened had the US not been deceptive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html

On September 18, 1990, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry published verbatim the transcripts of meetings between Saddam Hussein and high level U.S. officials. Knight-Ridder columnist James McCartney acknowledged that the transcripts were not disputed by the U.S. State Department. U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie informed Hussein that, "We have no opinion on...conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She reiterated this position several times, and added, "Secretary of State James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction." A week before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Baker's spokesperson, Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly both stated publicly that "the United States was not obligated to come to Kuwait's aid if it were attacked." (Santa Barbara News-Press September 24, 1990 cited in [1]).

Two days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee that the United States has no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country." The New York Daily News editorialized on September 29, 1990, "Small wonder Saddam concluded he could overrun Kuwait. Bush and Co. gave him no reason to believe otherwise." (quoted in [1]).

 

The South fired the first shot. President James Buchanan was president at the time. The South had been ceasing federal property and federal arsenals.

I gather in your opinion, our county government could vote to withdrawn from the state and USA and then have the police go seize all the weapons at the National Guard Armory and from the State Police, and if they don't just turn their weapons over they are provoking our country for which our police then have the constitutional right to fired on the Guardsmen and State troopers - and it's the fault of the State and Federal government.

Any group can declare themselves independent and then seize all property and weapons of government for which any resistance is provocative and justifying violent attack?

 

Because they were provoked

It was theirs to start with. If a nation breaks diplomatic ties with us we have to give back the land our embassy is on. You expect the people of Charleston to allow a foreign hostile fort in the middle of their harbor that they allowed to be built to protect that harbor and have an enemy fleet just sail in and reinforce it. For a guy who is so keen on war this is amazing

 

It also is within the power of Congress to authorize funds and troops to wage war on another County. So if you are correct that the South had in fact became another country, it was entirely Constitutional for the USA to go to war against such a foreign power. Every justification existed to do so. This other country has fired on US naval ships. It was seizing US military equipment by force and stealing US government property. It was engaged in unthinkable levels of atrocities at an unthinkable scale measured in millions - daily, and the land and territory of this other country was highly desirable to conquer and make part of our own country.

As such the Civil War was entirely Constitutional.

You did not answer my question. Do you claim that the USA should return all land and territory obtained by war against Native Americans, Britain, Mexico and Spain?

Clearly, you are an ISIS supporter under the DOI principle, correct?

 

But they did not. Lincoln took it upon himself. You think that an attack in which no Americans were killed is worth declaring war over? Hell we should be all over the ME

 

As a "country" the Confederacy was vastly more evil and more dangerous to the USA.

ISIS does not literally enslave approximately 40% of their population and entirely as racism.
ISIS does not kill 50% of the newborn babies of those slaves.
ISIS has never fired on a US warship.
ISIS did not first attack the USA.
ISIS has never sent arsonists from their country to burn USA cities.
ISIS has never engaged in biological warfare against the USA.

The leadership of the Confederacy was so rich and of such absolute and sadistic control over humans, they were a study in arrogant stupidity that lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Southerns retaliated against blacks by killing 25% of them rather than contemplating their being free. It is astonishing and even of questionable judgement that they all were not hung or shot after the war. In my opinion, they should have been. This would have gone a long way to reduce atrocities by the South continuing against blacks.

 

It didnt threaten the US in the least until we declared war on them. They would have been fools to start a war for no reason with a clearly superior power. They just wanted to be left alone

How do you justify Shermans march to the sea? I know the filthy rebs deserved it.

 

I don't disagree with that. Hussein was a tyrant of torturous and murderous activities. At that time - not know - the USA briefly again was an unstoppable world power. The USA could have eradicated a dozen Husseins and should have on behalf of the people of the world, at the same time making the world a safer place. But we didn't.

Some seem to be missing my view that I am glad the South's society was broken and taken to its knees because of the realities - generation to generation - of the cruelest enslavement of millions. This also had long lasting effects on the North in terms of committing to a path of equality for blacks, though it would take many decades more. So I don't care if the North "provoked" the South into war, anymore than I am troubled by allegations the USA prompted Japan to war, given the unthinkable levels of slaughter going on in China and everywhere else the Japanese invaded. Same for war with Germany. And, in the long run, each of these wars also made the USA more powerful and more secure. I'm not a pacifist. Maybe you are.

The history of the human race is insurrections and wars. Human and civil rights, freedom, was always only won in violence and often great sacrifices. The struggle of the human race has been against the tyrants and dictators, oppression and terror, torture chambers and enslavement. Fighting against such is always just, righteous and noble.

The CIvil War was a war that needed to be fought as a just and righteous cause exceeding any Biblical story and Southern slavery vastly worse than the Nazi Holocaust - and generation after generation.

 

Neither war was necessary. Thank god your not in charge or the whole pallet would be at war. Have you ever been to war ? Ever served ?

 

But for the USA going into WWII, Germany would have ruled the world as they would have gained the A bomb for their missiles. The Japanese had become a genocidal culture on an industrial scale. The Civil War was justified to end slavery and preserve the USA.

I gather you are a pacifist. Are you Amish? A Quaker?

No, never in the military or been to war. Have you ever been treated like a slave? Ever fought for your life for freedom? Directly fought for another person's life outside of military action?

There are ex servicemen claiming an expertise on world events that never should have been a soldier or in the military. People afraid of going to war shouldn't. All significant civil and human rights were won by courageous people willing to fight, including for others, not just themselves.

 

The US Congress initially authorized $500,000,000 and 500,000 troops to stop the insurrection and sedition. Neither the US Congress NOR ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ever recognized the Confederacy as a country. I could declare my home a country, but it doesn't make it so. Our County could declare itself a country, but that would not make it so. A declaration of war was not necessary as there was federal law authorizing the President opposing an insurrection.

To answer your first question, yes. I do not believe in only defensive wars. A defense-only strategy agreeing you have to allow the other side to attack first is for fools.

I understand your stages of what you believe avoids war

1. Apathy, then
2. Passive Appeasement, then
3. Active Appeasement, then
4. Compliance with demands, then
5. Submission and finally
6. Surrender before the war even starts.

And thus you goal of avoid war is avoided. That doesn't mean your death is avoided, but dying in war is because you do not oppose your being killed otherwise.

Here's a hint. You maybe be like another on this thread who claims being a slave, tortured, beaten, raped at will, your children killed at birth or sold, is a great way of life. But even surrendering, submitting to all demands and any abuse, and agreeing to be a slave still may not save your life. Pure cowardice and submissiveness isn't a guarantee of safety.

 

To end the war by cutting of the material supplies of the South and force the South to stand and fight rather than running away refusing to defend their cities and homes.

If the North wanted to have engaged in genocide against Southerners it certainly could have done so. It didn't. The gentle level of actions against civilians by the North was all but unprecedented in world history of war and in retrospect very possibly was a mistake.

Obviously you hate the USA military as much as hate can exist given its conduct in other wars.

How do you justify the South sending arsonists to burn Northern cities, assassins and even attempting biological warfare against the North since you are a pacifist?

But most of all, how do you justify slavery?

 

Your simply in the dark here
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/was-lincoln-a-tyrant/?_r=0

Your also wrong on your claim of it being a just war. Lincoln didnt start it to free the slaves but for power and land just like almost every war

 

The North didn't start the war, the South did by open firing on a US military fort and US Naval ships. It was recognized by the Southern forces doing so was specifically starting a war. Check it out. The first Confederate refused to fire, stating he was not going to be responsible for firing the first shot of this "war." But another insurrectionist wanted the honor of doing so. It was recognized that Southern forces open firing with cannon on Fort Sumter was starting a "war."

To claim the most notable outcome of the war was not the end of slavery is just being dishonest, other than your claim that the right to have an insurrection by slave owners to form a slave nation is more just than is the opposite of ending slavery being just. The insurrection of slave owners to have a slave nation failed and instead 100% backfired on them.

Whose rights are greater and cause more just? You say the cause of slave owners to have a slave nation was the great just goal - and I say ending slavery was the great just outcome. It can't get more opposite views than that, can it?

The war started because the super rich slave owners of the South wanted their own slave nation. The result instead was the end of slavery, which is a right and just outcome. If you think slavery is right and just then you will disagree.

 

Thats strictly your opinion.

Its not the outcome I deny its the reason you claim for the start. That something of good came out of it is irrelevant.

Was ending slavery a just cause? Yes

Was fighting a war because the states wanted to leave the Union ? No

What happened to your claim he did not violate the constitution? I can show you many more instances

 

You haven't show any instances of violating the Constitution. The Civil War was an insurrection with no Constitutional allowance of it.

You ask questions which I answer, but you don't answer questions. So, again, do you believe the taking of land and territory by military action against Indian Nations, the British, Mexico and Spain by military force was unconstitutional? Do you claim doing so was unjust?

 

Why do you keep bringing this up? The whole initial post was the I said by revoking rights he violated the constitution. You keep bringing up ANOTHER topic. I cited it for you twice. You keep changing the subject. He broke the constitution. No one denies that except you.

 

Remarkable is it not? I give him a long list of violations none of which he refutes

 

Revoking the rights, which is clear in the constitution that you CANNOT do, is a violation of the constitution. I've cited twice. You are just rambling and deflecting from the facts.

The fact is that Lincoln trashed the constitution and you're all butthurt about it. Grow up. It's a fact. Northerners and Southerners alike are smart enough to read the FACTS that state he violated the constitution. Apparently you lack that brain power.

Best of luck though...

 

Ok lets see more of why I say he is the worst president ever. That he was called a Republican is a joke

These guys had it right

. “

http://https://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/lincoln-increased-the-power-of-the-federal-government-at-the-expense-of-the-rights-of-the-states-and-civil-liberties-this-opened-the-door-to-more-unconstitutional-acts-by-the-government-in-the-1900/
Honest Abe my ass