we are divided about 50\50, can't get "more" divided", but the losers can get upset and be poor loosers when one side goes above 50%, then it's becoming less divided.... not more .
Thanks man, right back at 'ya. The CSA wasn't much better than the Union in terms of distributed sovereignty. Theirs was a very centralized constitution, one which didn't provide for secession. The near complete principled bankruptcy of the CSA made its eventual collapse inevitable. What would have been constructive was another nullification movement and a substantive assertion of independence and decentralized government. But I guess that's the problem all seceding governments have: to achieve security in your independence you require order, centralized government, and a repression of competition. Probably an issue that will never be resolved unfortunately. Our best chance is to seek independence as individuals rather than states - though the latter is a worthwhile ambition. Practically? Pretty troublesome if you don't want to become what you sought to secede from. This wasn't exactly what I was getting at. More so that people support the notion of national sovereignty. You presumably support many laws which require state agents to come in and forcibly cage someone for multiple decades (correct me if I'm wrong). Take drug law as an example: if someone decided to sell heroin on the streets of wherever it is you're from, you'd want such a response. What if someone was selling heroin on the streets of Jakarta, and the Indonesian government let them do this with impunity. Would you still send in the state agents? Probably not. [hr][/hr] People tend to support this notion of national sovereignty. But when you try to reduce the size of those sovereign bodies slightly - to states or localities, they get their panties in a twist. The distinction is arbitrary. Such as with slavery in states. Nobody would want to invade Saudi Arabia if they legalize slavery tomorrow. Many would want to invade Idaho if they did the same.
The English language has over 1 million words available to express ideas. Use the correct ones unless you're telling a joke. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assignation
You might find it useful to read the newspaper, since it was covered in the July 18, 1862, edition of the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1862/07/18/n...gress-sine-die-approval-confiscation-act.html The bill appropriating two hundred millions of dollars for Border Slave State emancipation and for colonization purposes. Lincoln wanted to buy the slaves in Washington DC as early as 1849. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Compensated_Emancipation_Act In 1849, when he was still a congressman, Lincoln introduced a plan to eliminate slavery in Washington, D.C. through compensated emancipation; the bill failed.[SUP][2][/SUP] In December 1861, a bill was introduced in Congress for the abolition of slavery in Washington, D.C.[SUP][3][/SUP] Sponsored by Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, the bill passed the Senate on April 3 and the House of Representatives on April 12.[SUP][4][/SUP] Lincoln signed the bill on April 16, 1862 amid ongoing Congressional debate over an emancipation plan for the border states. Following the bill's passage, Lincoln proposed several changes to the act, which were approved by the legislature.[SUP][5][/SUP] The passage of the Compensated Emancipation Act came nearly nine months before the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. The act, which set aside $1 million,[SUP][2][/SUP] immediately emancipated slaves in Washington, D.C., giving Union slaveholders up to $300 per freed slave.[SUP][6][/SUP] An additional $100,000[SUP][7][/SUP] allocated by the law was used to pay each newly freed slave $100 if he or she chose to leave the United States and colonize in places such as Haiti or Liberia.[SUP][[/SUP]
The South had been plotting for a way to form its own country since the 1830s. They also wanted to annex Cuba as part of it.
Wyrd of Gawd, most people here could tell what they typo should of been... but if you think it makes you look smarter to show that you did not... go for it the word should of been "assassination"... you know, as in the topic of the thread .
The truth is not politically correct aka not acceptable in today's political climate...thus the value of the internet...where one can find some truth from non-mainstream and unpolitically correct sources. One should never forget....the truth can be found in sundry places....but rarely in the mainstream American Media dominated by p.c. with talking heads like brian . Fox is a little better....not much.
Well, annexing cuba would have been good...in fact if the South had been allowed to secede peacefully we might have annexed the whole of S. America....which would have been even better.
"god " is used for a lot of scapegoating and, I guess , even condoning murder. Another example of religious sickos.
All bizarre assertions! And all false! Lincoln was certainly not interested in yet another compromise that would enlarge the number of slave states. But his predecessor, James Buchanan wasn't either. The new Repubilican Party was the party of the robber barons, railroads and new industry. They viewed the South as Britain viewed its colonies, as a source for raw materials, and not much else. Reconstruction was the GOP's policy after Lincoln's assination. He opposed it, but he would have had a hard time winning that battle. The GOP used the Federal government to occuply the South while northern Republican aligned business interests looted the place. Lincoln's adminstration was littered with crooks, as were those of all the Presidents in the era of the Grand Old Party up all the way to Teddy Roosevelt. The South was always doomed economically. King cotten had fueled the first phase of the industrial revolution in the US. But the rise of railroads, and the steady advance of the iron and coal industries in the 1840's and 1850's, made the US economy far less dependent in just the textile industry. Britain, the South's other primary market, was developing its own cotton growing resources in Egypt and India as a substitute for the South as well.
The Confederacy never had a chance to show what it could do....engulfed in War from the Gitgo....essentially they acted too hastily in declaring their independence....hotheads prevailed and gave Lincoln a great opportunity to use military force...if they had bided their time built up their militias they might have had a chance.
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa The Africans should bow down and thank the South for giving them refuge, giving them a home, allowing them to become somewhat civilized and the most humane treatment they had ever known. Most have little understanding how brutal and short life was in Africa....racked by disease, starvation, tribal warfare, cannibalism, slavery etc.etc. and so forth---did you ever hear of any Africans that wanted to return to Africa? The above poster has watched too many hollywood movies....if he wants to read some truth on Slavery I suggest.........>>>>>https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=mBZIf8Zqa4b4N9wSUSdb4A&bvm=bv.87269000,d.eXY
They had a constitution. They could have made is a proper confederacy with substantive sovereignty for the confederal bodies within, but instead they decided to make a near-unitary state organized not too differently from the Union.
Yes, I actually did hear of ex-slaves returning to Africa but that's not the point. The point is that I am so happy that people like you who support and cheer on and approve torture, rape, murder, selling humans including children to the highest bidder, lynchings, slave labor, are in the minority and are very unhappy that they can't do these things to anyone without criminal prosecution.... It must make them very frustrated - - - Updated - - - If, if, if.... They lost.....
That isn't true either. The Constitition of the CSA more resembled the Articles of Confederation than it did the US Constitution. The CSA was burdened from the start with a weak and ineffective central government.
It was never going to get it either. If the South had ever had a chance of functioning as a separate country, it would have needed to do so between 1820 and 1830. After that, the rapid growth of the industrial and financial base of the United States, and its heavy concentration in the northeast, doomed the South economically. Had the South seceeded early on, the United States as we know it today might not exist. The North American continent may well have wound up being divided into a group of regional countries, separated by geography, as Western Europe is. Under those circumstances, the US would never have become a world power.
Most people who talk about slavery know next to nothing about it......mainly getting their info from mis-informed sources aka.....hollywood, the pc media and public school babysitters. for those who do want some truth>>>>>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/jack-kerwick/2015-muslim-masters-infidel-slaves/
- - - Updated - - - Mr. Lincoln provoked the War>>>>https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=c2tw28i-VQ1ghGx_uDTg6g&bvm=bv.87269000,d.eXY
No, the south did............Lincoln ended it for them ..........AND IF Lincoln started it, GOOD....took care of slavery supporting scum.
