The 2024 Presidential Race Thread

[BrownFlush]

The Secretary of State in Maine is faulted in her reasoning.
On J6, Trump was not a candidate for POTUS.
Thus her "ruling" is invalid.

The Dims have done an excellent job with Jan 6. Magnify it, lie about, oh the humanity of it all.
It's been well done for us to not think about their lack of outrage and not one of them crying out in horror and protest, the murders, injustice, and burning down of American cities the summer before.

 

[BrownFlush]

Yankee: The war was about slavery.

Me: No, if there would of been no war slavery would have persisted, if the South would have agreed to back down from secession slavery would have persisted, in every scenario slavery remained because the issue wasn’t about preserving slavery because no one threatened slavery. The North only wanted to keep southerners with their slaves out of the territories.
There was no war to stop slavery. The North only fought to stop secession and secession was about the constitutional rights of Southern slave holders being broken and ignored and of the North’s effort to deny the South access to the nation via the territories, they wished to fence the South in and that is a sort of illegal imprisonment of people and their rights under the Constitution.
The war was about the North’s desire to dominate the nation.

 

[vantexan]

Yankee: The war was about slavery.

Me: The North only wanted to keep southerners with their slaves out of the territories......There was no war to stop slavery. The North only fought to stop secession and secession was about the constitutional rights of Southern slave holders being broken and ignored and of the North’s effort to deny the South access to the nation via the territories, they wished to fence the South in and that is a sort of illegal imprisonment of people and their rights under the Constitution.

So the war was about slavery also. Did the Constitution mention the right to own slaves? No, it didn't and the North was right to keep slavery out of the territories. Southerners had every right to move to the territories. But they couldn't bring slaves with them.

 

[Box Ox]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1741189791989813364

Leftists tend to think of Asians as white due to their disproportionate level of success and prosperity anyway. Could have the potential to weaken leftist skin color/victimhood theories if they didn’t.

 

[BrownFlush]

So the war was about slavery also. Did the Constitution mention the right to own slaves? No, it didn't and the North was right to keep slavery out of the territories. Southerners had every right to move to the territories. But they couldn't bring slaves with them.

When the North invaded Sumter, what was the reason? The grand and noble cause to free slaves?
"We denounce the assertion that slavery is the cause of our present troubles, as a libel upon the framers of our constitution, and repugnant to the facts of our national history." - Indiana General Assembly, 3/7/1863

 

[BrownFlush]

 

[BrownFlush]

The lost cause was the right cause.
It's happening today right in front of your eyes. The corrupt power of the Federal Government out of control.

 

[vantexan]

When the North invaded Sumter, what was the reason? The grand and noble cause to free slaves?
"We denounce the assertion that slavery is the cause of our present troubles, as a libel upon the framers of our constitution, and repugnant to the facts of our national history." - Indiana General Assembly, 3/7/1863

As I recall Ft. Sumter was a U.S. fort that was fired on by the Confederates. By the way Indiana was the only Midwestern state that was settled primarily from the south, not the east.

 

[BrownFlush]

By the way Indiana was the only Midwestern state that was settled primarily from the south, not the east.

Makes sense being between Ohio and Illinois.

As I recall Ft. Sumter was a U.S. fort that was fired on by the Confederates.

Yep. Just as Lincoln wanted.
South Carolina had dissolved the connection with the government of the United States, seceded. Who owned the forts in the harbor and of the military post was a question. Commissioners were sent to Washington to settle that question and other questions growing out of the new relation which South Carolina bore to the Union.
An understanding had been established between the authorities in Washington and the members of Congress from South Carolina, that the forts would not be attacked, or seized as an act of war, until proper negotiations for their cession to the State had been made and had failed, provided that they were not reinforced, and their military status should remain as it was at the time of this understanding.

 

[vantexan]

Makes sense being between Ohio and Illinois.

Yep. Just as Lincoln wanted.

Boy you try to wiggle out of anything. The Yankees didn't invade Ft. Sumter, the Yankees manning Ft. Sumter were fired on by the Confederates.

It makes sense that the Indiana Assembly would be sympathetic to the South. Box Ox has posted enough statements by Southern state legislatures showing that preserving slavery was an important issue to them.

 

[BrownFlush]

Boy you try to wiggle out of anything. The Yankees didn't invade Ft. Sumter, the Yankees manning Ft. Sumter were fired on by the Confederates.

"After the election of Mr. Lincoln in 1860, there was no concealment of the declaration and preparation for war in the South. In Louisiana, as I have related, men were openly enlisted, officers were appointed, and war was actually begun, in January, 1861. The forts at the mouth of the Mississippi were seized, and occupied by garrisons that hauled down the United States flag and hoisted that of the State. The United States arsenal at Baton Rouge was captured by New Orleans militia, its garrison ignominiously sent off, and the contents of the arsenal distributed. These were as much acts of war as was the subsequent firing on Fort Sumter, yet no public notice was taken thereof." - Sherman (The War Criminal of all time)

You only know what they wanted you to know. It's all wrote down in American History for 12 year olds.

 

[BrownFlush]

“The grievances which to the South seemed so intolerable that civil war itself was a lighter evil, were two (one was actual, the other was, in the main, hypothetical). They were suffering, and had long suffered, from the effects of the various Northern Tariffs; and they believed from past experience that as soon as the North had the power in its hands they should be exposed to the same perilous dealing with their slaves . . .
But it is clear that the first reason is the one on which the South mainly acted. The proof is very simple. Secession was an absolute and immediate remedy for the free-trade grievance. ..The protective system had been won as a triumph by the North . . .
The South felt the double sting of humiliation and of loss. They felt that they were wronged. And it did not seem likely that the evil would abate of itself in the course of time; the wants of the Treasury were growing, and as those wants grew, the tariff was likely to rise.”
The Quarterly Review, London, 1861.

 

[BrownFlush]

So, just to be clear about the cause of the war. If we had no war, we would of still had slavery for a time( it would have resolved itself with time and no war) if the South agreed to not secede they would of still had slaves, only secession was a reason for Lincoln and the North to fight.
So, the war was not about slavery, because there wasn’t anyone fighting to free slaves, the north only rallied around the war cry of secession.
Only secession alone was the cause of the invasion of the North. Practically any solution that left slavery untouched in the South would have been happily accepted by Lincoln. So, The War was about SECESSION.

 

[UnionStrong]

So, just to be clear about the cause of the war. If we had no war, we would of still had slavery,( it would have resolved itself with time and no war) if the South agreed to not secede they would of still had slaves, only secession was a reason for Lincoln and the North to fight.
So, the war was not about slavery, because there wasn’t anyone fighting to free slaves, the north only rallied around the war cry of secession.
Only secession alone was the case of the invasion of the North. Practically any solution that left slavery untouched in the South would have been happily accepted by Lincoln. So, The War was about SECESSION.

 

[BrownFlush]

View attachment 461498

I have found the VanMan needs overkill before it goes in.

 

[UnionStrong]

I have found the VanMan needs overkill before it goes in.

Lol

 

[vantexan]

"After the election of Mr. Lincoln in 1860, there was no concealment of the declaration and preparation for war in the South. In Louisiana, as I have related, men were openly enlisted, officers were appointed, and war was actually begun, in January, 1861. The forts at the mouth of the Mississippi were seized, and occupied by garrisons that hauled down the United States flag and hoisted that of the State. The United States arsenal at Baton Rouge was captured by New Orleans militia, its garrison ignominiously sent off, and the contents of the arsenal distributed. These were as much acts of war as was the subsequent firing on Fort Sumter, yet no public notice was taken thereof." - Sherman (The War Criminal of all time)

You only know what they wanted you to know. It's all wrote down in American History for 12 year olds.

Seeing as how they hoisted the flag of the State and not the Confederacy one can rightly say that the war started when the Confederate military fired on Ft. Sumter. But we're getting lost in the weeds. Slavery needed to end, and the Union winning accomplished that. To say it was unfair for the North to keep slavery from happening in the territories is essentially saying you support slavery and how dare they prevent its spread.

 

[vantexan]

I have found the VanMan needs overkill before it goes in.

Let me know when you actually justify the continuance of slavery.

 

[BrownFlush]

Let me know when you actually justify the continuance of slavery.

That's not the subject. I thought we were talking about why there was a civil war?

 

[BrownFlush]

is essentially saying you support slavery and how dare they prevent its spread.

How dare you!
I support true history.