abe

[ban-one]

doesnt everyone think its wrong for a president to raise an army against his own people i know now days we can hardly invade another country

[charge_of_glory]

I don't know, it seems like we have no problem invading another country nowadays.

It wasn't wrong for him to raise an army against his own people b/c once they suceded, they were no longer his people. When the South suceded they became their own nation, or at least they wanted to anyway. Besides, he used force to stop an issue that had gotten to an extreme point. He's not the only president to do that though. George Washington even used troops against his own people in the Whiskey Rebellion. It's not thatLincoln wanted to use force, he just didn't have any other choice.

[ban-one]

well in my opinon, by the 9th and 10th amendment the states that suceded had that right south carolina was the first he started raising an army, it wasent about a nation yet

[charge_of_glory]

That may be true, but I won't believe it until I see a document written by Lincoln himself stating that he wanted war and wanted it only for wealth.

Southerners were Americans until they suceded so of course they were his people.

As for Sumter, I don't see how making sure his men were well supplied with the things they needed meant that he wanted a war. If you know your people are on the brink of leaving your nation, the natural thing to do would be to keep your defenses running smoothly, in case of an emergency. Besides, it wouldnt have caused a war if the South wouldn't have found it to be a problem that he was sending in supplies. Lastly, the South attacked first, so they started the war in the first place.

Lincoln was not the only person to blame for the start of the war. Surely he was responsible, but so were his other advisors, as well as all the Southern leaders who chose sucession over peaceful compromise. Had they kept trying, maybe they would've finally gotten somewhere and not have caused 600,000 some men to die.

Try to see things from a neutral point for once. You'll see that it wasn't completely the North's fault.

[miltpoly]

I think they know that there was going to be a war long before abe was elected.He was the last insult to the south, and they were going to fight for their rights.I realize the slaves had a big part in all this but I tell poeple most didnt fight over slaves they were mad and tired of being pushed around.They thought they had every right to do what they did.Abe I think was very heavy handed,he could have tried other things. But remember some countys have been at war with itshelf for years, we had ours, and grow into the greatest nation in history! Blue and gray!

[charge_of_glory]

I agree N.W.15thAR. Very nicely put.

"....The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter - it fell, and thus did more service than it otherwise could..." Abraham Lincoln to Senator Orville Browning.

But what did he mean by this? I think he meant that he was happy the issue over that fort was over. Ending tension is always a good thing. The question is if the plan was for the fort to fall or for a war to begin. But either way, a war was inevitable. It would've happened sooner or later. Even if he planned on starting the war, I don't blame him because he knew it would happen. At least this way he could control it and do what he thought best, which is what every president should try to do.

So in the end, whether he wanted to end a problem or start a war, he was doing the right thing. At least I think so lol.

[husker_blitz]

doesnt everyone think its wrong for a president to raise an army against his own people i know now days we can hardly invade another country
That depends. Do you mean strictly "to raise an army against his own people" or simply using the military against his own people?

The reason I make that distinction is the military has been used to keep citizens in check long after the civil War....see Kent State for example.

[charge_of_glory]

Pos, I never said the quote wasn't a good one. I just think what it tells depends on your point of view.

[charge_of_glory]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No where in there does it even mention sucession or the US being a confederation of states. It simply states the Constitution's purpose, goals, and who it is for.

As for New England, I love it, but it's so small that it wouldn't be a threat. Besides, that probably had nothing to do with an established institution like slarvery. They probably could've been brought back peacefully, had they suceded. Who knows, maybe arms would've been rasied against them. I know if I was president and they left I would use force to bring them back, even though I'm a Northerner through and through. Just depends on the president I suppose.

[mizzoureb]

Was Abraham Lincoln The Great Emancipator?

I am sick and tired of Yankee Revisionist Schoolteachers that pay humbrage to someone they believe to be a kind and benevolent man. Abraham Lincoln was NOTHING of the kind. Abraham Lincoln was NOT The Great Emancipator that History has erroneously held him up to be. To begin with, he said, during his famous debates with Stephen A. Douglas (who, by the way, was a rival for the affections of one Mary Todd), that he was NOT in favor of making the negroes the equals of the white race. he was NOT in favor of giving them the right to vote. Nor was he in favor of giving them due process of law or letting them sit on juries. He also made a point of saying that he was not in favor of intermarriage between the white and black races. He even advocated the deportation of the ENTIRE ***** race back to Africa. If "Honest" Abe had REALLY gotten his way, the 13th Amendment would have called for the deportation of the ***** race INSTEAD of the Abolition of Slavery. During the Presidential race of 1860, he campaigned on the promise that he would NOT interfere with Slavery where it ALREADY existed. He was STILL making that statement in JULY of 1861 - THREE MONTHS AFTER the war had ALREADY started. In 1861, Major General John Charles Fremont UNILATERALLY declared ALL slaves in Missouri to be free. His reward? He was called to Lincoln's office and RELIEVED OF COMMAND. Lincoln ONLY became a so-called Abolitionist because his handlers thought that it was the politically prudent thing to do. Finally, the so-called EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION? Not worth the paper it was printed on. Contrary to what some Yankee Revisionists might tell you, it was NOT designed to free ALL of the slaves. It CLEARLY states that slaves ONLY in those states declared to be in "rebellion" were free. It made NO mention of slaves being held in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, or Missouri - states that, while they remained loyal to the Union were SLAVE states NONETHELESS. Again, aside from being a rutheless power mad dictator, Abe
was NOT The Great Emancipator.

[charge_of_glory]

Education in America doesn't mean a thing in this discussion. I haven't been fed wrong information by my teachers. I've read the Constitution and have interpreted the way I choose to and the way I believe it should be interpreted. Maybe your lack of faith in the thoughts and teachings of others has caused you to be so rediculous with what you say. You don't have to agree, but at least have the common courtesy to not insult others' beliefs and ideas. This is a place where we can discuss our opinions, not push them on others and push for anarchy, which you seem to do from time to time. Without education here, people would be stupid and discoveries would never happen. It's better to learn the lies and discover the truth than to ignore it all.

Hitler was freakin' crazy. To be honest, I don't take anything he's ever said seriously because he was very twisted. He was crazy to the extreme. Besides, the North's want for a centralized government (if that's what you mean by "Yankee absurdity") was because they were willing to give up some powers to be a strong, unified nation. It's not our fault that the South was too insecure to do the same.

Article I, Section 10- "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation...", "No state shall, without the consent of Congress,...[shall] enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power..."

Because no one really knew whether sucession was legal or not, the South was still technically part of the US. That means that it was illegal to form the Confederacy, which they did. This verifies the use of force against the South. Thought I'd point that out since the original topic was about using force against the people.

As for the 10th Amendment, sucession weas not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, so it was not a delegated power. BUT it was not mentioned as a power that even existed so the 10th Amendment is useless to decide whether or not it is legal. You can't delegate, or not delegate, a power if it is not established as a power in the first place. Now if the Constitution said something like, 'Sucession, when felt necessary, may be used', then the 10th Amendment would apply. But no where does the Constitution say that. The 10th Amendment if for powers mentioned, but not delegated in the Constitution. It's not meant for powers that hadn't been created.

As for Lincoln, he was the "Great Emancipator" because he freed Southern slaves.I don't think it was for the best reasons, but he still did it. That's why people still call him that. Slaves in the border states weren't freed because that would've strengthened the Confederacy. Not a smart thing to do when you're at war with them. It was a good move, and one that many people understand. My US history teacher even told us about it, and he didn't make Lincoln seem like a god, like you guys think teachers do. Even my textbooks look at all sides of the war. Your "Yankee Revisionist" crap is all in your head. It's just another way Southern bitterness tries to make the North seem bad.

To be honest, I think it may have been better to send the slaves back to their homeland. They wouldn't have suffered such great injustices back in their native land. They would've immigrated here eventually anyway, but by choice, not force. things may have worked out better for the race as a whole had they been deported.

[husker_blitz]

Of course he had a choice! Lincoln new full well when he attempted to re-supply Sumter that it would provoke a war. War is what he wanted and that is what he got.
Sounds a lot like the US's policy on terrorism. You don't give in. Sumter needed to be resupplied, Lincoln went on with the daily business of running the government and resupplied Anderson.

There certainly were other paths open to him.
And let's remember who fired on Sumter. Are you saying that Lincoln should have taken a diplomatic approach while it's okay for the South to use force? Come on.

[husker_blitz]

Abe I think was very heavy handed,he could have tried other things.
The only problem I have with this statement is what was Lincoln suppose to do? Remember, the states had already made their formal succession prior to Lincoln officially taking office. Lincoln had already stated that he was not going to interfere with slavery where it already existed. What more could the South want? Lincoln (an astute politician) would not and could not waiver on his platform any more than any day modern politician would.

Heck, blame the South for their misfortune. Their mishandling of the 1860 election all but gave the White House to Lincoln and knew what they were getting and they chose to attempt to leave the Union. As president-elect, Lincoln could have done very little officially to appease the South, which I doubt strongly would have made a difference if he had. If you want to lay blame for the states attempt at leaving the Union, then blame Buchanan's inept term for forcing the war with the south.

Also, mizzoureb mentioned John C Fremont. A few things to remember here. Fremont was "relieved of command" because he imposed martial law in Missouri, a bad political move if you want to win over the state's people for your side of the conflict. Also, you failed to mentioned that Fremont was given another command and was humbled by Gen. Jackson several times. Lincoln had to replace him because Fremont was a failure.

[charge_of_glory]

Sorry for taking things personally again. I try not to but somethimes I just get a little excited. I'll try harder to control my feelings on here. You can understand my excitement though I'm sure. Sometimes these topics can cause us to get a bit spazzy.

As for Virginia apologizing, I don't think they should have. What's done is done and nothing can change it or make it better. Most people understand that things were different back then. I find the apology to be another unfortunate result of political correctness. History isn't supposed to be full of rainbows and happiness. It's a bloody, horrible thing and we need to see that in order to move this world along. but that's just my opinion.

As for the school thing, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I frequently challenge what I'm taught and choose to believe what I want. If the school system was trying to brainwash us all, then they failed. In fact, they promote free thinking and challenging the facts. At least, that's how it is at my school.

About the 10th Amendment, I mentioned that as a reply to the original subject of this topic. I was looking at it from a legal perspective, because I don't believe they had the right to sucede. I see it as they were still Americans, but they didn't think so. All this talk of the Constitution depends on the interpretation of the document. It's something I doubt we'll ever agree on lol.

I don't cling to old views as much as you all think. I've changed my mind on some things, and I haven't with others. For instance, I don't think Lincoln was as kind and innocent as is popularly believed. I don't think he was a bad person, but I also think he had a bit of a dark spot in his heart. But I still think sucession was illegal like I was taught. So when you preach your "Northern propaganda" stuff, just please remember that we don't believe it all, just what we choose to. We've researched it too. Disagreeing is the point of debating anyway, isn't it?

[husker_blitz]

HuskerBlitz you seem to have waded in here without reading very much of what has been written before on this particular thread.You have therefore done us a disservice. Or maybe you read it without absorbing it.
Or maybe your filters were all fogged up with pre-conceived misconceptions so you are incapable of contemplating the implications of what has been said.
I think if you gave the matter some serious unfiltered consideration, your own position on this thread would become rather tenuous.
LMAO....are you serious?!

You can tell by my post count that I am fairly new here and I haven't been able to read every thread presented here. Besides this isn't the most organized forum in the world with clariten allergy medicine ads and the like spammed all over. But I make due sifting through stuff.

First and foremost, I never responded to any of your arguments but yet you feel inclined to attempt to insult me. Great way to make a lasting impression. And all the pretty words you used doesn't ignore that fact.

Furthermore, not a single person has bothered a rebuttal of my statements, which I find valid considering the arguments posted here.

So if you are so inclined to respond to something, begin there and work your way up.

[charge_of_glory]

About Lincoln asking Congress, I can see why he didn't. Congress was probably very unorganized and messed up at that time because of losing members. Besides, he might have thought that it wasn't needed since the Congress was now mostly Northern and he porbably would've gotten the vote to go to war. But that's just a thought, I didn't look up facts or anything.

[VTYank09]

Do not completely blame Lincoln for this war. I do not believe it is fair. If you want to say that after examining both sides closely and looking at the situation and consider human behavior etc....okay. I'm going to go out on a little bit of a limb and partially blame the previous president, Buchanan. He didn't believe the South had the right to secede, but he couldn't find anything in the Constitution, obviously, so he couldn't do anything about it. It was his feeling that Lincoln caused this so he figured, let him deal with it. He did nothing from November through March (lame-duck period) in which he was still president. The first 7 Southern states seceded after the election.

I do believe Lincoln's election caused the states to secede don't get me wrong, I don't see how that can be disputed. Now whatever everyone believes, you are entitled to that, but Lincoln did send a telegram to South Carolina on April 6th stating they were sending supplies to the fort not of military value (i.e. food, medicine). After Sumter was attacked and Lincoln called for troops the remaining four states in the Confederacy seceded. So in response to the original topic about Lincoln raising an army against his own people...right?

Techinally yes you could say that. But after Sumter, NO MATTER WHAT you believe to be the North's motivations for war, what was Lincoln to do? What he considered to be federal territory, was attacked. Also way back in 1857 after the Harpers Ferry incident, local militias began to spring up in the South. In 1860 the U.S. army was still very weak, approx. 16,000 spread out all over the country. So who is preparing for war here? All I'm saying is that both sides need to be held responsible/accountable for its actions and you cannot put blame completely on one side or the other. The division between North and South had existed long before this. Also at this time, Congress was adjourned. Lincoln could not call them back in time, it would have taken alot of the men months to return to Washington. He used his HUMAN judgment and made a decision. What would we have done if faced with the same situation?

All of these arguments, about the legality of secession, go back to the founding fathers. Everything we believe, is interpretation. Every one of us on here, including myself, take what we have learned, combine it with our personal opinions and interpret history in our own way and say what we THINK this person meant by that or this. It also depends on how you read the Constitution. Are you a strict or loose constructionist? Do you take it literally word for word, or do you feel that you can interpret it to fit the times. In my opinion, we can't have a strict view of it. The way society exists now, and the way it existed back in the 1850s/60s was different. The founding fathers couldn't have anticipated all this change when they wrote the Constitution, they couldn't have anticipated all of the problems so it must be flexible, which is why they allowed it to be amended.

One final thought. At the beginning of this conflict, we were a young nation. 27 million people, over half were under the age of 21. If any us here are in that age group (18-25), myself belonging to it, we know how we can be. We make mistakes, we judge things, we would rather act first and ask questions later. We act irrational at times and let our emotions get the best of us. We think we know everything, we're invincible. That is what caused this conflict. Each side was unprepared, they didn't take the other side seriously, didn't think the other side had the guts to follow through. We allowed our emotions to control our actions. Each side thought they knew the people that made up the other. We were all wrong, we all made mistakes, we are all to blame.

[charge_of_glory]

Beautifully said!

[charge_of_glory]

Southerners are not the only people in America with stereotypes against them. We all have them. In fact, it's kind of a freindly joke usually here nowadays. A lot of people use those stereotypes as a way to kid around. I hear it everyday. Possibly the biggest stereotype is against America as a whole actually. Those terms for Southerners are no worse than those for any other group of people. In fact, the ones that group us together as a nation are the worst ones out there. I'm pretty sure those names don't oppress the Southern way of life or their heritage.

As for the Confederate flag issue, that's all a b/c of a general misconception. I think it started when the KKK and other racist groups flew it. People thought that's what it meant whenever anyone flew it and never learned otherwise. People just don't understand that this political correctness of today is hurting our history. The issue of using Confederacy in a museum's name is not a sectional issue, but one of political correctness.

To be honest, the North doesn't want to feel superior to anyone. In fact, I find the North to be rather quiet. Actually, no section of this country really finds itself to be superior over anyone else. There are the few cases involving individuals, but that's not the general population. The winner writes the history of the events, and it's always been like that. Don't look at it as the North trying to be superior, b/c every victorious group throughout history has done it. It's human nature, not a conscious attack against the South. Besides, the South tried to look superior to the North for awhile after the war. They actually tought students that they had won. Yet again we see that no one is truly innocent.

[VTYank09]

Well put charge_of_glory. No one is truly innocent. The South has been vilified and this is just not so. I also mostly agree with Possum on some things. I'm from Pennsylvania and I admit, we are taught history through the eyes of the victor: the North. To the victor goes the spoils right? Well this is wrong. You have to look at the other side and look at it from a Southerner's perspective. You should always take the time and try to understand why they did what they did. They were taking action and doing something they believed in. After examining the other side, I have even seriously questioned myself on these issues. Who was right? But at the same time, things happen for a reason, we can't change history, and that's how it goes. Both sides felt it was the right thing to do. I feel like both sides felt morally superior to the other, and by this I mean I think both sides felt God would be on their side. And Reconstruction was pretty much what Possum said...military occupation and setting up Republican governments etc.

People that get upset when they see the Confederate Battle Flag should seriously read up on some history. That flag has nothing to do with racism, the KKK or whatever. It is a symbol of Southern pride. On a personal note, one thing that bothers me is that my roommate hangs a huge one in our living room...that's not my problem...my problem is that he's from NEW JERSEY haha!! So if someone could seriously describe the flag's meaning to me, I would greatly appreciate it because I'm not exactly sure what it stands for and would like to know. Thanks!

[charge_of_glory]

Your right about being taught from the victor's point of view. But that's why we have to do our own research and find the truth about both sides. It all depends on what you choose to accept and what you choose to look into.

From what I know, the Confederate flag stood for state's rights, independence from the US, protecting their way of live, not necessarily slavery, though that was included for some people I suppose. To some, it does mean racism, but they're all fools who deserve whatever happens to them b/c of it. Maybe a Southerner can give a better description of it's meaning. I think I covered the general ideas though.

Why does he hang one up if he's from New Jersey? In fact, did New Jersey even fight in the Civil War? I don't ever remember hearing about them or seeing any monuments in their honor. Poor NJ, it's such a forgotten state...

[VTYank09]

Well said charge_of_glory. It's up to us to do the research and look up the facts. Couldn't have said it better. And thanks for clarifying the flag for me.

[charge_of_glory]

Trust me, whenever I hear misconceptions about the South, I stand up for them. I may not have agreed with their ideas, but I won't let the lies go on if I can help it. History is only useful if it is correct and a lot of what people know today is wrong. They think the South was evil and that slavery was the one and only cause. Let's end those lies.

[VTYank09]

I am the same way charge, when someone doesn't have all their facts straight, I make sure they know the truth or I atleast give them a different perspective. The South was not evil by any means and you are exactly right, slavery was not the one and only cause.

And don't worry about it Possum, it's human nature. When there is something you're passionate about, it just hits you and sometimes we allow our emotions to take over. We get so worked up and excited. I'm mostly Irish with a little bit of Polish in me, but I don't really have a good grasp on my ancestral background. I would really like to look into it though and study the history of my Irish background more in-depth. Anyway, getting back to things, like charge said, history is only useful if it is correct. Unfortunately it still tends to repeat itself now and then. But people need to be more educated and think for themselves, not just memorize something from a textbook.