Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Seems like Lincoln could have changed the Constitution, or amended it, before killing 600,000+ Americans over property.

Seems like the South could have just not gone to war over its right to own people.

Nope. In this case, the property was people.

Why am I not surprised that Mike is a confederate apologist?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 8:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pointfwd on 8/8/2017 10:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/8/2017 2:54:00 PM (view original):
The "problem" is people view the 1800s from today's viewpoints. "Own people? WTF?" Slaves were nothing more than livestock back then. They bred them to make better one. Seems insane today. But, in 1840, that's what was done. Hell, you could challenge people to duels with no repercussions(assuming you won) back then.

Incorrect. Most of the civilized world back then did not view slaves as livestock. Humankind was already "evolved" enough to see this brutality for what it was.

Currently, cops can open fire on citizens in 2017 with no repurcussions in virtually any circumstance despite evidence of wrongdoing. Seems insane, but that's how it is.

Currently, blacks are incarcerated at 1400 per 100k pop vs whites 275 per 100k. More blacks in jail that whites despite being a small percentage of the population.

Look back at the insanity of the 1960s. 100 years after emamcipation, blacks could be legally barred from any business or even government run entities.

The South insisted on being on the wrong side of history and paid the price. Where is your outrage against Lee for not surrendering in order to end the bloodshed?

Who said the Confederacy was right to fight?

My point all along is Lincoln rushed into war against his own people. He's friggin' Saddam Hussein in a stove pipe hat.

This.

Do you even read the threads before responding?

Yeah, you say that, but then you post over and over again that the South was just protecting its property and Lincoln was really the bad guy.

The South really wasn't doing anything. The Constitution and US laws were what they were. As previously noted, slavery wasn't abolished until 1865.

Lincoln, looking to change the Constitution/US laws started a war that killed 600,000+ Americans rather than go thru legislative channels. If a President who kills 600,000+ of his own citizens isn't a "bad guy", I guess Saddam would be considered a hero in the Middle East. And I have no idea why anyone is worried about Serbia.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):
The South really wasn't doing anything. The Constitution and US laws were what they were. As previously noted, slavery wasn't abolished until 1865.

Lincoln, looking to change the Constitution/US laws started a war that killed 600,000+ Americans rather than go thru legislative channels. If a President who kills 600,000+ of his own citizens isn't a "bad guy", I guess Saddam would be considered a hero in the Middle East. And I have no idea why anyone is worried about Serbia.

By "the South really wasn't doing anything," you mean other than SECEDING from the US in order to protect their ability to own people?

Confederate apologist.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):
The South really wasn't doing anything. The Constitution and US laws were what they were. As previously noted, slavery wasn't abolished until 1865.

Lincoln, looking to change the Constitution/US laws started a war that killed 600,000+ Americans rather than go thru legislative channels. If a President who kills 600,000+ of his own citizens isn't a "bad guy", I guess Saddam would be considered a hero in the Middle East. And I have no idea why anyone is worried about Serbia.

By "the South really wasn't doing anything," you mean other than SECEDING from the US in order to protect their ability to own people?

^ Lincoln wasn't going to let the South just secede, it was about unity as well. And the Confederates didn't think of themselves as 'Americans' did they?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):
The South really wasn't doing anything. The Constitution and US laws were what they were. As previously noted, slavery wasn't abolished until 1865.

Lincoln, looking to change the Constitution/US laws started a war that killed 600,000+ Americans rather than go thru legislative channels. If a President who kills 600,000+ of his own citizens isn't a "bad guy", I guess Saddam would be considered a hero in the Middle East. And I have no idea why anyone is worried about Serbia.

By "the South really wasn't doing anything," you mean other than SECEDING from the US in order to protect their ability to own people?

^ Lincoln wasn't going to let the South just secede, it was about unity as well. And the Confederates didn't think of themselves as 'Americans' did they?

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):
The South really wasn't doing anything. The Constitution and US laws were what they were. As previously noted, slavery wasn't abolished until 1865.

Lincoln, looking to change the Constitution/US laws started a war that killed 600,000+ Americans rather than go thru legislative channels. If a President who kills 600,000+ of his own citizens isn't a "bad guy", I guess Saddam would be considered a hero in the Middle East. And I have no idea why anyone is worried about Serbia.

By "the South really wasn't doing anything," you mean other than SECEDING from the US in order to protect their ability to own people?

^ Lincoln wasn't going to let the South just secede, it was about unity as well. And the Confederates didn't think of themselves as 'Americans' did they?

CSA?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 2:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):
The South really wasn't doing anything. The Constitution and US laws were what they were. As previously noted, slavery wasn't abolished until 1865.

Lincoln, looking to change the Constitution/US laws started a war that killed 600,000+ Americans rather than go thru legislative channels. If a President who kills 600,000+ of his own citizens isn't a "bad guy", I guess Saddam would be considered a hero in the Middle East. And I have no idea why anyone is worried about Serbia.

By "the South really wasn't doing anything," you mean other than SECEDING from the US in order to protect their ability to own people?

^ Lincoln wasn't going to let the South just secede, it was about unity as well. And the Confederates didn't think of themselves as 'Americans' did they?

CSA?

There is obviously a difference there. Also, saying that slaves were looked at as 'property' by everyone would be completely false. Lincoln didn't look at slaves as property. Saying that 'Lincoln fought a war for property' is saying that NOW we look at slaves as property, which is wrong. Slaves were, and are not property. Maybe the south looked at things that way, but not Lincoln, who is the one we are talking about.

Also I am very pro-nonviolence, but the Civil War is one of the things that I believe was overall for the good of the USA.

Also, the Civil War was not completely about slavery, although slavery was the main issue. Lincoln wanted a whole USA, and the south seceded partially due to a difference in industry/agriculture.

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 2:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):
The South really wasn't doing anything. The Constitution and US laws were what they were. As previously noted, slavery wasn't abolished until 1865.

Lincoln, looking to change the Constitution/US laws started a war that killed 600,000+ Americans rather than go thru legislative channels. If a President who kills 600,000+ of his own citizens isn't a "bad guy", I guess Saddam would be considered a hero in the Middle East. And I have no idea why anyone is worried about Serbia.

By "the South really wasn't doing anything," you mean other than SECEDING from the US in order to protect their ability to own people?

^ Lincoln wasn't going to let the South just secede, it was about unity as well. And the Confederates didn't think of themselves as 'Americans' did they?

CSA?

There is obviously a difference there. Also, saying that slaves were looked at as 'property' by everyone would be completely false. Lincoln didn't look at slaves as property. Saying that 'Lincoln fought a war for property' is saying that NOW we look at slaves as property, which is wrong. Slaves were, and are not property. Maybe the south looked at things that way, but not Lincoln, who is the one we are talking about.

Also I am very pro-nonviolence, but the Civil War is one of the things that I believe was overall for the good of the USA.

Also, the Civil War was not completely about slavery, although slavery was the main issue. Lincoln wanted a whole USA, and the south seceded partially due to a difference in industry/agriculture.

So it's OK to kill "non-Americans" on US soil? Since when?

As I keep saying, slavery was not abolished until 1865. Up until that point, the United States of America viewed slaves as property. Whether or not an individual viewed them as such is not relevant. The USA viewed them as property.

Lincoln could have used legislation or guns. He chose guns a mere 4+ months after secession. Maybe he could have waited a day or two longer, no?

Also, I voted for Jefferson overall. He:

• Wrote the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence
• He wanted to ban slavery while a member of Congress
• Lowered the national debt
• Opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts
• Louisiana Purchase
• Lewis and Clark
• Did not think of Indians or slaves as inferiors

Just my opinion

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 2:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):
The South really wasn't doing anything. The Constitution and US laws were what they were. As previously noted, slavery wasn't abolished until 1865.

Lincoln, looking to change the Constitution/US laws started a war that killed 600,000+ Americans rather than go thru legislative channels. If a President who kills 600,000+ of his own citizens isn't a "bad guy", I guess Saddam would be considered a hero in the Middle East. And I have no idea why anyone is worried about Serbia.

By "the South really wasn't doing anything," you mean other than SECEDING from the US in order to protect their ability to own people?

^ Lincoln wasn't going to let the South just secede, it was about unity as well. And the Confederates didn't think of themselves as 'Americans' did they?

CSA?

There is obviously a difference there. Also, saying that slaves were looked at as 'property' by everyone would be completely false. Lincoln didn't look at slaves as property. Saying that 'Lincoln fought a war for property' is saying that NOW we look at slaves as property, which is wrong. Slaves were, and are not property. Maybe the south looked at things that way, but not Lincoln, who is the one we are talking about.

Also I am very pro-nonviolence, but the Civil War is one of the things that I believe was overall for the good of the USA.

Also, the Civil War was not completely about slavery, although slavery was the main issue. Lincoln wanted a whole USA, and the south seceded partially due to a difference in industry/agriculture.

So it's OK to kill "non-Americans" on US soil? Since when?

As I keep saying, slavery was not abolished until 1865. Up until that point, the United States of America viewed slaves as property. Whether or not an individual viewed them as such is not relevant. The USA viewed them as property.

Lincoln could have used legislation or guns. He chose guns a mere 4+ months after secession. Maybe he could have waited a day or two longer, no?

If Lincoln banned slavery in the United States, it would do no good. The Emancipation proclamation was more symbolic than anything else, because the CSA IS NOT THE USA. Let's say Lincoln bans slavery in 1861. Guess what? NOTHING CHANGES. No one owned slaves in the north, and it would have only upset the south more. One of the great things that Lincoln did was to keep the slave states that were still in the USA... In the USA. If Lincoln does a full ban, maybe the border states secede as well, and maybe that turns the tide of the war in some way, or makes it last longer. So as I understand your argument, you would have preferred Lincoln a)Do I widespread ban of slavery in the USA, which may have made the border states secede, and then b)Don't go to war with the South, which would have kept tons of slaves in captivity. The only way Lincoln 'Frees the Slaves' is by taking the CSA. Also, let's say the CSA continues to exist. They probably would have sided with the central powers in WW1 anyway, the point I am trying to make is that once the CSA seceded, a war was imminent.

Yep. Secession caused the war.