Abraham Lincoln vs Bahir Assad. Who Is Bloodier?

You know its funny if you google the reason for the war historians now agree it was about slavery not states rights yet still most believe it was states rights as i was taught in school. I guess what these historians now fail to see they are the same thing. Slavery was a right protected under the constitution and upheld by SCOTUS. If not for the promise of this right no southern states would have joined the Union in the first place.

 

At some point is it just a word-battle and depending upon what perspective and whose perspective a person wants to consider it.

 

Not really you can not separate slavery from states rights

 

Its just pick-a-word at some point, and then arguing over whose word is more important.

Can a state withdraw from the United States? That can be called a state's right issue. I can be called an insurrection issue. I can be called an issue of federalism or nationalsm.

What was the underlying motive? Slavery. So it can be called an issue over slavery.

Curiously,the South has succeeded. They had been raiding and seizing federal buildings, forts and munitions across the South - and the North was doing nothing nor had their been violence. Nor could the North do anything. It had no militia to speak of and neither Congressional or Northern popular support to fight it. Then, as a really dumb decision, the North Carolina Confederate militia - the only state legislature to vote 100% to leave the union, open fired on an irrelevant tiny federal militia force at Fort Sumter.
This inherently defined it as war by the South against the USA government and public opinion turned as people had to pick which side of the war to be on. Ultimately this lead to Congress giving Lincoln 500,000 troops and $500 million to win that war.

Insurrectionists attacking a military base in modern terms would be called "domestic terrorism," so it also could be called an issue of domestic terrorism. It could be called just about anything. Debating which word most matters of itself doesn't mean much.

I do find the psychology and many other aspects of the Civil War and what lead to it interesting. Prior to debating this, the only interest I had in that era was weapons and firearms evolution, as wars rapidly become a weapons technology race among other things. The South really had gotten their way. All the Southern leaders had to do was nothing - because the North and Lincoln couldn't do anything if the South did nothing. But I believe for reasons of arrogance and ego of super rich slave owners who from birth has god-like life-death power couldn't just do nothing. The defiance of the North merely refusing to agree with them was intolerable. No one ever dare disagree with them.

So the CIvill War is an outstanding example of "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" for the Confederate leadership. Sometimes, doing nothing is the best tactic of all - and that was the one thing the powerful and rich slave-owners leaders couldn't do. They couldn't just have what they want by silence, they decided they had to win it with cannons. While Northerners opposed slavery, they were none to keen on black people for the most part and most so struggled just to get by that going to war just for some ideals of national unity wasn't what they wanted to do. Slaveowner super rich Southerners shooting at their militia and Navy with cannons was something different. That IS war, so they considered themselves at war.

Virtually no one wants war with Cuba now and Cuba has long demanded we get out of Gitmo. But if Cuba open fired on Gitmo with a massive artillery barrage for our refusal to abandon Gitmo Americans would be screaming for a war response, wouldn't we? The Southern leadership was arrogantly foolish and cost themselves the whole ballgame and more.

 

I agree with your assessment but blame the local commander. If It'd been the SC government being stupid there would have never been negotiations on the issue.

 

Since session is not forbidden by the constitution its perfectly legal. Session is not sedition. Again no state in its right mind would join such a Union or make such a compact. Would you join a union knowing the only way you could leave it were by force of arms? It was Lincoln and the north that were violating the constitution not the south

 

There is the other question. Would you join a country and rely upon it for your defense, a common currency and common infrastructure knowing that at any moment any group within it could seize anything they wanted and withdraw? Would you be willing to contribute $1 or 1 minute of your effort knowing that at any time anyone could just take for themselves singularly? Would you rely on that country for your defense? That isn't even a country. Its just a treaty that will be dissolved and violated any time anyone or any group decides they are better off not being in the agreement and compact - that group seizing and taking anything they want when they do.

 

Very possibly so. That is always a danger of putting a military facing another military. It only takes one of either side to fire a shot to quickly make it a war. Not being there neither of us have a sense of how much war was in the air and consciousness of leaders, soldiers or the public.

Also, unlike the North, the South inherently was not going to have a true central command.

Stats are interesting. 87% of all males of fighting age in the South were in the military. But over 50% went AWOL. The rate was about 30% for the North.

 

Another aspect is the South didn't have much choice but to join in the American Revolutionary War and the Northern colonies.

Britain was far more anti-slavery than were Northern colonies. It is likely that Southern states joining in the independence fight extended legal slavery longer than it otherwise would have survived because it is likely Britain would have outlawed it. The South alone wouldn't have had a chance against Britain, particularly since it being about slavery the Northern British colonies would have full British support in a joint fight against the Southern British colonies if they wouldn't comply with British law outlawing slavery. Thus the South would have been at war with BOTH the North AND Britain outright. That wouldn't be so much a war as a slaughter.

One way or another legal slavery was ending as the tide of history was increasingly against it, and the South made it clear they would fight to keep slavery.meaning that war may have been inevitable, though there may be been bloody slave insurrections until this happened. As a separate Country, the South may have gone the way of South Africa - and being a white person is S. Africa isn't a good place to be now, just like until a couple decades ago being a black is S. Africa sucked.

In that all, it could be argued the American Revolutionary War was a mistake, because it is unlikely the Southern colonies would have dared resisted Britain outlawing slavery if the Northern colonies were still English colonies and loyal to the the English crown due to the joint overwhelming power of the Northern Colonies AND Britain itself as one in war against the South. Instead, the USA may have evolved along the route that Canada did. A non-violent end of slavery and then ultimately non-violent independence from Britain, though remaining strongly connected to the UK.

What would have happened in alternative futures is always debatable, but interesting to consider. What if there had been no Revolutionary war or the Southern states had not joined in, for which it unlikely there would have been independence or even the courage to try?

 

I'm vary much pro-CSA being a Southerner and would argue that it was the North that started the war (Bloody Kansas and the Noth sending reinforcements to the fort) but actually falling for an obvious trap and shelling the fort it's something only a politically illiterate military commander in a stressful situation would do.

 

I doubt there are few wars ever fought where the side that fired the first shot didn't blame the other side claiming they were "provoked" as justification.

If you read of the actual battle of Fort Sumter, the first S. Carolina militiaman ordered to fire what to be a warning shot at the fort refused to do so - despite the severity of refusing an order back then - giving the exact reason that he was not going to be personally responsible for starting a war. Another militiaman did - and this was interpreted for other Carolinian batteries as a signal for them to all open fire. For the next 34 hours the Fort was fired up - with the effect of setting the fort on fire but no casualties. The Fort was heavily armed and stout, but too undermanned to use most of their cannons with little munitions and the fort designed mostly to defend against a naval invasion, not a land attack.

The American Revolution is called "the shot heard around the world." That single initial cannon shot was the shot heard across North America.

Other minute but interesting details. The S. Carolinian militia - numbering 3000 and with a mass of cannons and mortars (the latter being effective for firing into the fort itself) came to greatly admire the militiamen in the fort - less than 200 - holding out as the fort was pounded hour after hour after hour and the hopeless defenders refusing to surrender despite the fort soon a mass of flames. The S. Carolinian militiamen cursed the federal reinforcement ships for them turning around as cowards for abandoning their fellow federal militamen in the fort. Personal courage and loyalty to your side was a highly admired trait back then, even of the enemy.

At wars end, the South mostly respected Lincoln and the North respected General Lee. But even in much of the South Confederate President Jefferson Davis was fairly hated. General Sherman was certainly hated in the South. The March to the Sea broke the South as it broke the infrastructure, supply sources, forced the Rebels to try to stand and fight, and shattered the Southern slave culture financially ruining the rich slaveowners, but also generated the enduring hatred in the South.

The South was vastly wealthier than the North prior to the war - average income was double that of the North. It took 100 years for the South to fully recover economically. The Southern states most taking the brunt still haven't entirely.

 

The 1st shot was fired almost a year before in Kansas.

 

Oh, and you do mean you are "very pro-CSA" being a Southern WHITE guy, right? I can likely accurately guess your not black.

 

No but that is not what happened. These were sovereign states before they joined the Union and they claim they never gave up all sovereignty and the DOI backs them up.

 

Not true. You should read the ORs and also 'Lincoln Takes Command'. The ORs give a fairly complete picture as to what was happening at Sumter. 'Lincoln Takes Command' fleshes out the picture with all the other goings-on and is very well sourced.

 

If they truly were sovereign states in the context of sovereign nations, then warring against those OTHER sovereign nations was not unconstitutional. So if it is claimed they had a right to NOT be part of the United States, then it also was not unconstitutional to war against those other countries. Thus even it if was not "unconstitutional" for them to leave the union, then it also was not unconstitutional to war against them as a separate country. In a way, it's arguing over words.

Europe factored in substantially and the South greatly miscalculated over and over in such regards. For example, the South embargoed cotton hoping to force Europe to at least prevent a coming blockaide. Instead, it just lead Europe to find another source of cotton and financially broke the South - which then paid a huge economic price after the war.

Lincoln claiming this was about insurrection played well among the British elite as they hated insurrections, though worked for the European population as the South was claiming "freedom" as their cause due to Lincoln avoiding the slavery issue to try to hold states in the union. The decisive voice in Britain stated that he read the book Uncle Tom's Cabin 3 times before making his decision, and went against the South. However, there was no prohibition against the South buying European weapons or even warships - if they could get the money or cotton there - and increasingly the South could not.

While the union military on the ground did very poorly the first couple of years, the Union navy was highly successful. The numbers differ as well. The Union navy was massively larger then the Confederate navy.

While the Union did not go to war against civilians directly (not killing civilians to kill them), the destruction of cities, farms and houses lead to massive desertion among Confederate troops who rushed home to look after their families. Desertion reached over 50% for Southern forces.

Like most wars of that era and earlier, disease was the real killer responsible for 2/3rds of military deaths.

Then the argument shifts to "war is evil" as the criticism. I've explained my view previously that war of itself is not evil. Rather, the effects and results of the war determine if it was moral or immoral.

 

It is when congress has not declared war and you do it on your own to nations that never attacked you. You really need to read how Lincoln incited that battle and the war.

Check this out
https://books.google.com/books?id=TBeqbaOxdMMC&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=lincoln+takes+command+fort+sumter&source=bl&ots=J45TK4A7Oq&sig=ZlHEztMd-voTwmaY9QasRct7GO8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBmoVChMI4feRksWQyAIVgvM-Ch0XJA50#v=onepage&q=lincoln%20takes%20command%20fort%20sumter&f=false

 

The author begins by announcing his conclusion that the 9 of 11 Confederate states that gave a formal reason were all lying and REALLY it had nothing to do with the topic of slavery.

The initial cause was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which in his opinion was proof that American democracy had failed. So the first place to put blame is on voters. Voters were at fault for being anti-slavery. If voters had voted for the other candidate and supported slavery, there would have been no war. So first we have to blame Americans for not voting for a pro slavery president. Worse, Northerners opposed expansion of slavery in the Western territories. And, worse of all, Republicans engaged in politics to oppose the expansion of slavery and campaigned politically in opposition to secession.

Then, in his opinion, it was wrong to even attempt to prevent secession. Opposing secession put the wheels of war in motion, and if Lincoln and Northern leaders had endorsed seccession, would have been no Civil War.

Wow, what a claim. Lincoln "incited" the battle by not ordering a surrender before the battle. Any leader who does not surrender prior to war is responsible for the war. Worse of all, Lincoln didn't threaten war and build up enough for war so he was misleading the South inviting the attack on Sumter by deliberately appearing weak.

So, since voters didn't support secession, didn't elect a pro-slavery president, didn't support making the Western territories slave territories, and dared to engage in politics in the election - while at the same time Lincoln wasn't screaming threats of war - the South was forced and egged into firing on Fort Sumter.

The author rambles on and on and on, mostly trying to convince the reader he is a brilliant historian. Very annoying. Does his article present you case?

 

One more time slavery and states rights are the same thing. That was where they saw the Union violating the constitution

 

OK and I've acknowledged their logic in such regards.

 

Where others are getting it wrong was to claim it was due to excessive federal court power and excessive federal government power. It was Northern states being anti-slave, becoming anti-slave, accepting and sheltering runaway slaves, promoting slave insurrection such as John Brown (that the Federal government executed) etc. It was a conflict between the states, why it is called the "War Between The States."

When it became a federal issue was opposition to secession, ie th American DOI and e break up of the country. Never it's history, before or since, has the USA agreed to get smaller and the Southern colonies were created by seizing land from other nations (Native Americans and then Britain), so opposition to the USA getting smaller was not only opposite the entire creation and history of the country, but also contrary to the former actions of those Southern States. They even were seizing land previously agreed to being owned by Native America nations and ignored the Supreme Court to take it. So it was pure hypocrisy to claim it was unethical for the United States to not agree to lose territory, when the Southern states not only had refused to do so, but had done the opposite.

It was the South saying "do as I say, not as I do" historically when it comes to secession and respecting land and territory of other legitimate countries.

Once again, initially the South was a hodge-podge insurrection, for which the President has exact power to fight an insurrection and was charged by law with doing so. Later, it became a war against the South declaring itself a nation, and Congress did authorize massive money and troops specifically to fight that war. Remember, the South was not created in a day when all the South declared they were a separate county. Rather it was a process across months, even went back and forth for some states and even within some states, nor at first did Southern states even claim a collective nation status.

As a separate nation, there was no prohibition against going to war against it. Prior to this, a group of people firing upon a military fort is absolutely an "insurrection." That is regardless of how ticked off they were. Timothy McVeigh was ticked off about what happened at Waco. So was I. But McVeigh was an anarchist murderer deserving execution for what he did, though I understand why he did and shared his anger at government for the same reason.

But, again, it had nothing to do with excessive Federal court power as another member rants. As for state's rights, actually it was about individual rights - the right of anyone to own a slave. Claiming it was about state's rights is putting the cart before the horse. The actual motives for secession is, of course, always arguable as the declared motive of someone and the actual motive often are not the same. Doing so is speculative on known facts, but it is speculation.

I do not believe Lincoln's goal was "personal power" or the goal of expanding federal power. Rather, I believe it was exactly what he said, to stop the breakup and weakening of the United States. However, he also personally was anti-slavery and once he was in the position to make that happen he did. I also believe a core motive of the South was their super rich, god-like personal power slave owners wanting the only personal power they did not have - to each have their own slave country (ie state-country). But that is subjective and arguable.

I agree the Constitution guaranteed the right to own slaves and to have the return of slaves. But to declare that justifies secession or war? No. To claim otherwise is to claim anytime government does anything you perceive as unconstitutional justifies war, insurrection, seizing government property and weapons, and to go to war. That's an anarchist viewpoint.

It also is accurate that secession was unconstitutional, because there was a constitutional duty to the government in other regards such as taxes, levies etc - and by secession they were not complying with that constitutional duty. So the constitutional claim goes both ways.

As for the DOI, it does not say anyone can engage is secession just because the want to. The DOI does NOT end after the first paragraph, does it? Rather, it gives a grocery store list of injustices against people, not a claim the English crown wasn't following English law. The rest - all the stated grievances against people as individuals - is the substance of the American DOI. So, in totality, the act of secession from Britain is just ONLY justified IF the reasons for doing so were about great injustices against people collectively and individually. If the reasons are not compelling and just, then neither is secession. That is the logic of the American DOI.The DOI does not say anyone can engage in secession anytime anyone wants to and end there. It says people may do so IF there are great compelling injustices against people making doing so a necessity of the people. Not some technical legal point contrary to justice for people.

The Southern states who made a declaration (9 of the 11) did NOT state injustices against the people at all. Their stated justification was in defense of slavery, which is an injustice. ONLY if their cause was against ongoing terrible unjustice and persecution, only then is the act of secession warranted. The South's DOI claim their only justification is to preserve slavery on claiming a legal technicality of an 8 decade old law (Constitution provision). Eliminating slavery is not any injustice to the people, is it? It was just a legalistic issue to slave owners advantage allowing them to do horrific injustice against people, and who were only 1/3rd of even the white people. Opposition to slavery and preventing expanding slavery certainly was not an injustice to black people in the South. As such, the American DOI and the South's Declarations (not called DOI) were diametrically opposite in their totality.

And, of course, I stick to my viewpoint that the greatest justice of it was the end of slavery - so in all the justices and injustices applicable, that is the decisive one.

 

You could be correct.........

https://www.facebook.com/RedMansView/?fref=ts
Red Man's View

https://www.facebook.com/notes/red-mans-view/how-lincolns-army-liberated-the-indians/515559085195891

How Lincoln's Army 'Liberated' the 'Indians'
August 29, 2013 at 1:46am
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo

 

" Could be correct"

Moi is correct!
Having been programmed in the fifties to worship and sob for Lincoln,
like stopping Communism in Vietnam, there comes a time to
recognize one has been "programmed" far from the truth.

The Truth Is:
Lincoln made war on civilians.​

It seems okay today to damn Jefferson and Jackson for being Slave Owners
although they were exemplary men of their time, modern PC makes them "Bad Men".
Making War on Civilians is considered bad in modern PC times.
The view of Lincoln as a saint needs to be challenged with the truth.

Lincoln made war on civilians!​

Similar to Ottawa bankers make war on the rest of


Moi

r > g

Build The Wall!
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

True.....
but the courage that President Lincoln demonstrated against

seriously flawed central banking policy is something that needs to be remembered in his favour.

I do hope that either The Donald or perhaps Bernie..... learn from his example in this area.


http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...donald-trump-can-great-president-because.html
Donald Trump can be a GREAT President because.......
… of his deep level of empathy with the greatest forces that are keeping the average American down!

I saw two documentaries about The Donald yesterday evening. When I saw the part about how he purchased the Taj Mahal through financing arranged by about twenty different banks. When I heard that he had agreed to pay them a high rate of interest. I knew that The Donald had been guided by G-d to have a deep empathy for the situation faced by President Abraham Lincoln.

...…

http://www.michaeljournal.org/lincolnkennedy.htm
Melvin Sickler:

................

The Fed.......... is set up in such a way that it is extremely useful in causing significant boom and bust cycles..... which tend to break unions. To a segment of the population strong unions are one of the greatest evils in America and the whole world.


http://www.infowars.com/trump-calls-for-auditing-the-fed/

Trump Calls For Auditing the Fed

GOP frontrunner makes good on promise to call for audit of Fed

 

Yes it is all the bankers' fault, just like the Ottawa bankers stealing provincial FREEDOMS.
And although you as a may find some positive, Raymond Massey ref. to Lincoln the Bloody,
even those authors would be hard pressed when asked a but War Profiteering during those
courageous Abraham Lincoln days.

Get Over It.
Abraham Lincoln was no Saint.
He made bloody and famine war on civilians.
Was it that "abolitionist" suffered mass psychosis
and delusions over what their means was willing
to tolerate in Christ's name?

Andrew Jackson, Jacksonian Democracy, is to lose its' place on the $20 in part
because Jackson is NOT P.C. in the 21st Century.
Well, Abraham Lincoln is NOT P.C. either for reasons stated above.



Moi

r > g

View attachment 44463
Build The Wall!
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​