Protesters topple Silent Sam Confederate statue at UNC

Don't worry, Donald Trump is President today and will deport any Nazis found in America.

Obama sure didn't.

 

I would not be calling for Trump to invade as Abe invaded. No, not me.

I mostly object to what Abe the outlaw did because he invaded states. He had no right to use a draft army to invade states. For any reason. Due to his anger, 630,000 were killed in combat.

True he never said he waged war over slavery, but he waged war. Pretend he decided not to invade VA and other states. Pretend he came forth as a great negotiator. A man of peace. A man who would listen. A man who would disarm Sumter prior to it being hit by cannon fire. Cannon fire that harmed no person in the fort. It amounted to an empty gesture on the part of the South. Abe could have cooled his jets and spent even 2-4 years working out peace. He spent 4 years waging war. Why not peace? Some blame Bush for an unneeded war. Abe waged an unnecessary war.

Let's dissect this a tad more.

Abe was supposed to represent all citizens still in the union. If his hateful actions cost the life of even one young man in the north over his notions of union, that would be one too many.

Ignore how many got killed for the South. Stick to the North's cost. Today the huge argument is over blacks. We have many groups represented in the USA but of all those groups, but one group causes all holy hell to break out. Blacks form the gist of a lot of daily discussion.

Whites died for them. But they get no thanks. Whites lost legs and arms for them. Still whites get no thanks. All we get are the grumblings of Democrats who deny illegals vote but bust our butts over voter suppression. Studies do not find voter suppression. How do I know, they never cite any accurate studies.

Abe put a knife in the back of America. We could have ended slavery and done so in peace and not had all this fighting. But today due to Abe, we wage war on each other as if it is still 1861.

 

Obama had 8 full years to rid us of Nazis. But he never tried.

 

You're right .... everywhere else slavery was ended without a war.

Since Lincoln decided singlehandedly to initiate the war, it appears you have it ass-backwards.

If you want to read the details about how Lincoln did it, I suggest "Lincoln Takes Command" by John Shipley Tilley. It relies heavily on the Official Records that presents a true picture of what was happening at Fort Sumter and The Congressional Globe, which later became The Congressional Record, that details Lincoln's refusal to inform Congress of his plans, even after being specifically asked.

For four months, during perhaps the most momentous time in our history, Lincoln ruled as a dictator, and I do not use that word lightly.

With Congress completely out of the picture, Lincoln sent a fleet to Fort Sumter, called up 75,000 troops, saw 4 more States secede, began a naval blockade of Southern ports, invaded Virginia and suspended habeas corpus in 3 different areas of the North.

He was a busy old bastard during his first four months in office.

 

You laud the invasions by Abe and the enormous cost in lives. I wish you knocked that off.

 

When the South seceded, what do you think Lincoln should have done? The actual fighting started when he tried to re-supply the besieged garrison at Fort Sumter. The South fired the first shot. They were not going to turn back.

Are you arguing that Lincoln should have let them go? (Some abolitionists advocated this -- "Wayward sisters, go in peace" or something like that. )

What should he have done?

I've got to go to bed now and cannot reply for a few hours. But consider this: had the South successfully seceded, then there is a good chance that other sections of the remaining US would have followed their example, in time: the economic interests of the agricultural mid-West and the industrial-East were not completely congruent. The West Coast has always had its own interests, facing the Pacific.

We could easily have ended up as a group of states -- sort of like Central America.

Now ... I'm not against this, in theory. I'm a big believer in 'national'/tribal self-determination, and I also believe that the largest ideal size for a democracy is about five million.

BUT ... we don't live in an ideal world ... coming down history's path was Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia and expansionist Japan, and I'm glad as hell that the biggest baddest brother on the global block was and is -- for now -- a liberal democracy.

Otherwise, those two big oceans and non-threatening neighbors north and south might not have protected us -- we would have been Poland and Czechoslovakia and Norway with some water between us and some very nasty big nations that practiced the opposite of fragmentation.

So good on old Abe Lincoln and I'm sorry my ancestors in Georgia had to fight for the slave-owners.

 

No, you're just plain wrong about that.

I already gave the example of the Georgia Sec State who has stated that disenfranchisement of minorities is an objective. And, if you read what his contribution has been, you can see him in action. Now, the state is quite likely to elect him governor - Republicans already chose him as their champion in their primary.

And, I agree that's more of a problem than any Nazis. My point about the Nazis was simply a tuning of a straw dog someone else created. I should have ignored it.

 

??? Presidents can't do that.

 

The Confederacy declared a revolution.

You're talking nonsense.

 

Seriously? You think we would be better off if two countries occupied the territory of the USA today?

I just don't believe that.

 

That Sumter was besieged (poor Major Anderson ... something must be done!!)is the big lie that allowed things to spin out of control.

Major Anderson was being supplied from Charleston on a regular basis. He even got to pick his butcher and complained once when the meat didn't come from him. He also got his mail and visitors were allowed to come and go.

Doesn't sound very besieged to me.

 

You wish.

 

I suppose the Catch-22 word here is "civilized."

Slavery and the slave trade is alive and prospering today.

You want your own slave ? You go to the same place in Africa where the Portuguese slave traders went to get their slaves to ship to the Americas.

So why aren't the American taliban tearing down Chief Crazy Horse monument ???

Well the leadership of the radical left don't want to talk about it.

Indigenous Native American Indian tribes participated in the slave trade and owned slaves well into the 1890's. Being sovereign nations the 13 Amendment didn't affect them.

How many black slaves did American Indians own ?

Only those who were on Indian reservations were counted in the U.S. census.

Go to page XV. -> https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860a-02.pdf

 

More to the point, the Confederacy declared a revolution. We can talk about why they did so, but it shouldn't come as a shock that a revolution would be opposed by force.

Yes, and besides owning slaves you can commit murder, too. That's not evidence that America supports it.

 

Why do Democrats fight so hard to defend the one Republican that cost the lives of over 630,000? I cite the losses on display at the Manassas museum where I first saw this in print. And it is a Federal site.

 

I don't believe this is about Lincoln.

I don't know ANY US president who would have allowed a revolution as stated by the Confederacy.

 

We already know why 11 states thought they could secede from the Union, Abraham Lincoln told them that they could.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones..."
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:444?rgn=div1;view=fulltext;q1=Lyceum

Before 1861 seceding from the Union was legal.

America was a different place back in 1860 than today.

Before 1865 Americans held their loyalty to the state they resided in not the federal government.

After the civil war all states North and South lost many of their states rights.

 

WHAT????????????????????? This is the very first time in all my years discussing this somebody says the south declared a revolution. What date?

 

Good Grief, Abe assembled a massive army. He could have held meetings to avoid war.

 

It was a secession, Stephens words notwithstanding.

What the Confederate States did was take back federal properties within their territories. No one was killed in any of these seizures.

The Confederates tried to send a delegation to Washington to settle any issues regarding this and other topics, but would not be seen.

In all their actions, the Confederates carried out a secession, not a revolution.

 

It seems that President Buchanan was allowing it to happen and nobody except a few had a meltdown.

President Lincoln was going to allow it to happen until he was informed that the federal government wouldn't be able to pay its bills without the tax revenues that came from the southern states.

 

You peet and i shall repeat. Wonderful explanation to those who loved how Abraham Lincoln invaded states. What is puzling is when they deny he invaded. They must study his invasion at the proximity of a community called Manassas.

The deniers should go there and walk those battle fields. I walked them. i studied the records on the two sites in that community area. The museum is not large but it has important things in it.

Abe invaded. Spectators in buggies and on horses came to watch what to them was great fun. Then fled with the Union back to DC. I would imagine many a rider on horse and on buggy got home having defecated in their pants that day. They must have fled having enormous fright.

 

Read the Corner Stone speech.

I quoted it a few pages back, but it's easy to find.

 

That's what General Kelly said. The liberal MSM attacked Kelly for saying that.