Lincoln's most conspicuous act of tyranny.

Thanks for the post, Nina. Pretty powerfull. I am wondering about the idea of the South selling its cotton to England and getting a much higher price than they would have gotten selling it to the North; and so the North -- the ATM machine that supported Lincoln -- demanded war at whatever cost in lives (700,000 lives lives lost). I don't see that in the article, or I could have missed it.

Marcy

As I have said time and time again, the War Against Peaceful Secession was NOT about slavery. That was a pretext Lincoln used when the war was going poorly for the North, when it was purely about taxes and tariffs and tyranny of the North over the South and federalism and all that. Lincoln's idea was to free the slaves (but only those in the rebel states, not those in the north) and hope to incite them to rise up against their masters and thus aid the North in its quest to subjugate the South. Pretty clever, eh? And Lincoln had in mind that when the ware was over, it would be best to deport the negroes back to Africa. You don't have to believe me. Do your own research.
There was NOTHING noble about the War Against Peaceful Secession. And the wrong side won. And history is written by the winners.

Nina

Thanks for the post, Nina. Pretty powerfull. I am wondering about the idea of the South selling its cotton to England and getting a much higher price than they would have gotten selling it to the North; and so the North -- the ATM machine that supported Lincoln -- demanded war at whatever cost in lives (700,000 lives lives lost). I don't see that in the article, or I could have missed it.

Marcy

Nina:

I have heard this before about how the Civil War was not about slavery. I would like to know where you are doing your research. My research tells me the war was most certainly about slavery.

1
The secession ordinances passed by the original seven Confederate states EXPLICITLY state the protection of slavery as the reason to secede. There is a book in the SF Public Library containing the ordinances and the directly give the election of an anti-slavery president as the reason for secession. Have you ever read the ordinances themselves to see what the proponents of secession say was their motive?

2
One would think that if the right of a state to secede from the Union was a reason to secede, the Confederate constitution would contain a clause giving states the rights to secede from the Confederacy. There is no such provision. There are, however, several references guaranteeing the right to own slaves.

3
Late in the Civil War the Union began to recruit and arm escaped slaves. There was some talk in the Confederacy of freeing some slaves, if f if they would serve in the Confederate army. The opponents said that, if they were going to free the slaves, what was the point of seceding?

It is clear from Lincoln’s published comments that his original purpose was to preserve the Union, NOT to free the slaves. And yes, he did think that the freed slaves would have to be removed from the country because he did not think that whites and blacks could get along together. He changed his mind as the war went on. Such feelings were widespread in the North. Most Northerners wanted to contain slavery, but they did not particularly want to live with blacks either.

Les Mangus

As I have said time and time again, the War Against Peaceful Secession was NOT about slavery. That was a pretext Lincoln used when the war was going poorly for the North, when it was purely about taxes and tariffs and tyranny of the North over the South and federalism and all that. Lincoln's idea was to free the slaves (but only those in the rebel states, not those in the north) and hope to incite them to rise up against their masters and thus aid the North in its quest to subjugate the South. Pretty clever, eh? And Lincoln had in mind that when the ware was over, it would be best to deport the negroes back to Africa. You don't have to believe me. Do your own research.

There was NOTHING noble about the War Against Peaceful Secession. And the wrong side won. And history is written by the winners.

Nina

(Attachment 0296B48DBFBD44FB96662D3AAA629476.png is missing)

Read anything by Thomas Lorenzo or the Abbeville Institute. There are many others of course but those two will get you started.

Nina

Nina

Why should we pay any attention to Thomas Lorenzo or the Abbeville Institute? Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

Thank you Nina….I’m currently reading “Everything you were taught about the Civil War is Wrong” by Lochlainn Seabrook. It is also a very interesting resource.

The right to secession was contained in the Declaration of Independence, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and in Thomas Jefferson’s Inaugural Address. It was also clearly laid out in oAnd the Confederate Constitution contained several references to State’s Rights to Secede similar to the 10th Amendment where the Federal power of the government was subservient to the rights of the States. The Right of Secession was taught in our nations military schools.

Less than 5% of the population of the South owned slaves.

There’s a reason the first battle of the Civil War was at Fort Sumter, a tax collection base. It must be said Lincoln was masterful at setting up the situation as a false flag and selling the War to the North. But there was no Constitutional authority to do so.

Mike

Because they do actual research looking at original sources rather than accept the official stories and secondary sources hook, line and sinker. Check them out and judge for yourself.
Nina

Why should we pay any attention to Thomas Lorenzo or the Abbeville Institute? Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

Richard, your reply is not a legitimate argument. They should be listened to because they have something interesting to say. If not them, there are plenty of others. We have had this discussion before.

Or just listen to Walt Whitman who said “The real war will never get in the books” or Lord Acton who corresponded with General Robert E Lee throughout the war and who agreed that a state’s right to secede was essential to managing Federal power. Look at our current situation. Who can argue that they were wrong?

Mike

I have looked at the original sources as well and have drawn my own conclusions. The Abbeville Institute in particular is not an objective source of information. I see no reason to accept their stories hook, line and sinker. I don’t need either Thomas Lorenzo or the Abbeville Institute to do my thinking for me.

Les

(Attachment 0BC2A78AD585453C87D8F07089474BFC.png is missing)

(Attachment 9ED660FF395E42988020AA8C608E0AE1.png is missing)

Mike:

If Lord Acton really said that, I guess it only proves even the best thinkers can go astray.

I am not sure whether the South had a legal right to secede or whether there is a natural right for a subdivision of a state to secede, if they don’t get their way, but…..the actual secession should be judged on the reasons for seceding. And the Southerners explicitly said that their reason for seceding was to protect and preserve the institution of slavery. One Union general said “Never was there such gallantry in support of so unworthy a cause”. I don’t remember who said that, but it rings true. People like Nina who say the wrong side won are implicitly voicing support for the cause of secessioj.

Les

(Attachment E87E222B35C14430BC38EEDEF471AE8C.png is missing)

(Attachment 0414923B7398439FBF4CDFB8DFD40301.png is missing)

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor Thomas Jefferson’s Inaugural addresses are sources of legal precedent. Unfortunately the 10th Amendment does not name any specific right. It was left up to future legislatures and courts to determine what it actually means. Future legislatures and courts have virtually gutted it of any real meaning. This is unfortunate, but it is a consequence of the vagueness of Amendment 10.

“the right of secession was taught in our nation’s military schools”. So what???
Are you saying the military is a source of political philosophy?
Why in the world is this relevant???

“Less than half of the population of the south owned slaves”. Again so what???
This doesn’t seem to have affected the willingness of the other 95% to fight for the preservation of slavery.

The first battle of war was most likely fought at Fort Sumter because that is where the South first sought to militarily challenge Federal power. The reason you give is pure speculation and imputes far too much prescience to Lincoln.

You are wrong about the constitution authority. Section 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTION and repel invasions. Since Congress was not in session at the time, Lincoln took matters into his hands and asked Congress to ratify it later.

Les

(Attachment 271FDCF04A4D46F1B2C8891B90CD2199.png is missing)