originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: MayanBoricua
originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: yuppa
it was never about the slaves it was about pure money.
So you know more than the VP of the Confederacy? He stated in his cornerstone speech that it was about slavery because it was God's will to keep them
as slaves because he made blacks unequal to whites. Here is his speech read it and learn something.
The Cornerstone Speech
All true. The guy was a racist. So was Lincoln. Read his diary. He wanted to send all the slaves back to Africa.
Send slaves back to the country they were stolen from, vs keep slaves in bondage and misery to produce great wealth for the upper classes.
Which is more noxious and racist and bigoted and evil?
And in the end, actions matter more than words. The slaves knew which side they'd rather be on.
The Civil War: Was secession illegal?
"There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any other legal document which precludes any state or group of states from seceding from the
United States. This was true in 1861." READ THAT carefully.
Today, countries are split and otherwise reconfigured almost daily and the United States has evolved as the world's moral leader in supporting rights
of peoples to declare themselves independent. This is a comfortable position for U.S. politicians ... as long as secession occurs in Europe, Asia,
South America, or Africa.
"In 1860 controversy between the North and South raged over tariff laws. The North had begun to openly defy fugitive slave laws. All across the North,
states refused to honor warrants for return of slaves -- in direct defiance of federal law and of the Constitution which clearly mandates that each
state must recognize Constitutional laws of all other states. Additionally, the federal government refused to intervene on behalf of southern
Well Ill be dipped. The NORTH IL LEGALLY ignoring a states laws and the FEDERAL LAW TOO!!
"A present day analogy would be if those states with NO death penalty should refuse to enforce fugitive warrants from states WITH the death penalty.
Refusing to honor such warrants would create a Constitutional crisis similar to the one that arose in 1860. Would the question then be over the death
penalty, or would the question be over obeying the Constitution and the law of the land?"
"In December 1860 South Carolina seceded from the Union and other states followed early in 1861. The South was irate over federal laws restricting
exports and imports from Southern harbors. The federal laws were enforced by naval blockades at Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, and Savannah. Of
course the South was angry over the fugitive slave laws, but that effected less than three percent of the people in the South. The tariff laws
effected all Southerners."
Oh whats this? BLocking a States own ports(before the war mind you) To BLACKMAIL THEM INTO SUBMISSION.
"Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. He had not given any indication that he was opposed to slavery within those states where slavery
was legal. He had, however, given several signals that he regarded secession as illegal notwithstanding that he was a lawyer and there was no legal
basis for his opinion. Lincoln had further indicated that he would not recognize secessionist decrees and would enforce federal laws everywhere within
the United States. The South was bitterly opposed to his election."
Hmm so he would have to MAKE laws to enforce then because up until then the constitution DIDNT HAVE ANY AGAINST SECESSION. So no representation yet
again but were talking about lincon so its alright to ignore the law right?
"To assert federal authority, Lincoln sent ships into Charleston Harbor (South Carolina) to supply the U.S. Army post of Fort Sumter and to assure
that the United States Flag flew over the fort. On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces under General Pierre G. T. Beauregard attacked Fort Sumter. The
Union troops surrendered on April 13 and evacuated the fort the next day."
Yep sailed in thinking they could intimidate the southerners...guess not so much huh?
"The South began a war with virtually no iron foundries, steel making capability, textile manufacturing, credit, or money, and with a war raging, both
sides needed instant cash. The North owned almost every ship, river boat, and train. The South had plenty of food, tobacco and cotton, but the North
controlled the established ports for foreign trade along with existing lines of credit. With ships, the North could embargo Southern ports. However,
the North had lost the important trade commodities of cotton, tobacco, and sugar cane."
" Ignoring the Constitution, Congress enacted an income tax which not only supplied cash but served as collateral for foreign loans. The South was
left on its own."
Pay attention to that line there. they IL LEGALLY created a TAX. And to who? foreighn investors in the war.
Lincoln was a Puppet of the banksters.
SO no you will not push the winners version on me over the truthful version.
Oh stuff in quotation marks not mine btw to be clear.