The Civil War

No Lincoln started the war. He was told not to reinforce or supply Fort Sumter. He was told to get out.

So he should of ? They fired on the fort.

They probably thought the north wouldn't fight. They certainly miscalculated didn't they.
  

If the North hadn't cared about ending slavery at all or was indefferent to it they would have CERTAINLY dropped the slavey issue for then and worked on it or chipped away at it.

That was always on the tavble.

They didn't instead of telling the south that "well o.k guys look, we don't like slavery but we don't feel it's worth people dying over and or our union being ripped apart so forget it. We don't want you to seceed so we'll drop it, own all the slaves you'd like and do as you wish by state."

Frankly that was the offer.

Well then the South really didn't need to seceed then did they? Oh yes I forgot, we started the war.

Was it right to ignore the Constitution as did the north?

Let's see, where have I heard this before. Just because something is llegal doesn't make it right. I wonder who has said that a hundred times at the abortion thread.

If you feel that the south was righteous then we have nothing to debate further.

In following the Constitution it was righteous. That was what the war was about.

See above or the abortion thread. It's the same as your argument against abortion is (one on which I agree with you on) that just because it's legal doesnt always make it right.

A federal protection of abortion is not in the Constitution. It was a figment of Harry Blackmun's imagination. Now it is the law. Another example of the feds over reaching all thanks to the north winning the Civil War.

Oh yes I forgot, we started the war.

Ah WE. The South is WE, too.

A federal protection of abortion is not in the Constitution. It was a figment of Harry Blackmun's imagination. Now it is the law.

And niether one of them is right. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Abortion: another example of the feds over reaching all thanks to the north winning the Civil War.

The question is are you going to follow the rules or not. The north took the position they would not follow the rules.

Lincoln was elected because the democratic party split in two.

Still denying reality, fold. That is you in a nutshell.

that's pretty much exactly what the us consitution said, bill, until it was amended to allow for direct election of senators by the populace.

We might as well give up on fold. He doesn't want to know anything other than what he believes to be true.

Maybe he's not as willing to embrace treason and sedition as you are, jethro.

Romantic outlaws, isn't that was the Confederacy means to you? You identify with them.

The Confederacy didn't the outcome of an 1860 election. So they wanted to leave. If they weren't traitors, I'd say they were babies.

But if you can't go that far, I'll tell you, I think they were lesser men. None were statesmen, like Lincoln.

Maybe he's not as willing to embrace treason and sedition as you are, jethro.

Same applyies to you, Rick. Because it wasn't treason or sedition. That is why the Union determined not to try Jeff Davis. How would it have looked if the Supreme Court had ruled that states had a right to secede?

Romantic outlaws, isn't that was the Confederacy means to you? No not at all.You identify with them. Not particularly.

"That is why the Union determined not to try Jeff Davis."

Did Walter Williams, your favorite pencil necked geek professor tell you that?

LOL!

Rubbish, and rubbish again.

Did Walter Williams, your favorite pencil necked geek professor tell you that?

If you were interested in facts you would do some reading. Obviously you haven't and you don't know what it is you are talking about. Look into and you will learn something. I am sure you won't. My guess it is either out of laziness or fear.

You didn't answer my question, as usual.

Is that out of laziness or fear?

The answer is no. That point of view can be found through out the history books. Now you tell me why the Union did not try Jeff Davis?

"Now you tell me why the Union did not try Jeff Davis? "

I think he spent a good amount of time on the run after the war, trying to revive his treasonous cause.

Probably for the same reason they didn't try Lee -- what's the point in creating martyrs?

I think he spent a good amount of time on the run after the war, trying to revive his treasonous cause.

He wasn't on the run long after the war ended. He spent a couple of years in prison after that. I again advise you to do some reading on the subject and you will find out it isn't exactly the way they tell it in the movies.

You can start here.

You can start here.

And then there is this.

popular vote

Man, I never thought "The Civil War" would become such a popular thread.

Seems to be more popular than Jesse Ventura!

Isn't everything more popular than Jesse Ventura these days!!!!!

Presiding over a rapidly dividing Nation, Buchanan grasped inadequately the political realities of the time. Relying on constitutional doctrines to close the widening rift over slavery, he failed to understand that the North would not accept constitutional arguments which favored the South. Nor could he realize how sectionalism had realigned political parties: the Democrats split; the Whigs were destroyed, giving rise to the Republicans.

"We" didn't select our Senators in the 1860's and before. Senators were elected by the state legislators. Look it up. I'll look up when the change took place.

The fact is Jethro, that the other posters and I get along with pretty well in here, both on and off the board, just fine. The issue isn't whether we get a long. The issue is that you show me no respect at all and for no good reason. I disagree with you and you take it personally. One example is that you state that I am a liar. When you do that I will not sit back and take it. I will, as in the past, respond in kind.

Because they have the ability to stay calm and respect another point of view, even when they don't agree with it. You don’t stay calm when I disagree with you, fold. That is the problem

It was easy to find that the 17th Amendment passed in 1913 changed the election of Senators.

fold, give it up. You don't want to know anything other than what you already believe.

I haven't....

http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761561031

I hope to visit someday. History is a big interest of mine. The historic landmarks in Philadelphia really caught me in awe when I was there. I'm sure that Gettysburg would have the same effect. = )

I must put this on my reading list!

JEFFERSON DAVIS, AMERICAN is a critical and sympathetic account of the controversial statesman.

Please note the word "critical." The above doesn't mean that the author is sympathetic to slavery or racism only sympathetic toward Davis.

What makes you even ask such a question?

I don't have either on my wall, I have Reagan! But I am reading a bio on Abe now. I am at the point where he fired George McClellan. I just think it would be good to read the other side.

Jethro, do you believe slavery to be a social & moral good?

Maybe!!! Depends on who the slave is!!! Seriously, who would would say slavery is good?

Seriously, who would would say slavery is good?

There's plenty of people out there.

Anyone I know?

Jethro, do you believe slavery to be a social & moral good?

Of course it is. It's called marriage!

Anyone who admires Jeff Davis???

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves too. Does that mean we can't admire him? One can admire some of a person's traits without having to endorse everything that person stood for.

Here someone comes with the Hitler talk again.

Hitler, Hitler Hitler.

Everyone gets compared to Hitler.

Jefferson was a man of his time.He possessed contradictions like every human who has walked the face of the Earth. Tarring him with the same "he's a hypocrite" talk you read every day here about every one of us, reduces him to a two-dimensional figure.

He's more complex than that. He was late to free his slaves. Probably because he ran up monstrous debt living the high life those five years in Paris.

But to look at him through a prism of 21st Century thought diminishes everything to some debate you see on "Crossfire,"

"Tonight we debate Thomas Jefferson: Was he Hitler or Hero.?

"We'll be right back."

You're being silly, JT.