In response to:

Historic Rescuers

Missouri Confederate Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 2:09 PM
Let me say first I am against slavery but the south seceding from the union was legal. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say once states enter the union they can never leave. How was the south wanting it's independence any different from the USA declaring independence from Great Britain? What Sherman and other northern generals did to the south and Indians would be considered war crimes today.
Broadus Wrote: Jun 05, 2013 11:46 AM
the United States government is still getting involved with other governments and countries to tell them how to live.

even if they have to use military force....

this is happening all over the mid-east right now....

obama, mccain, graham and kerry are proposing exactly the same thing with Syria at this very minute...

they do not like what the country of Syria is doing so they will tell them how to live and if they don't do as the USA tells them....

the USA will use military force......

basically the same actions that started the U.S. Civil war.
dan17 Wrote: Jun 05, 2013 12:04 PM
But this was no accident on the part of the secessionists. They understood
this notion just as Lincoln understood it. Immediately following the 1860
election, two opposing banners would have stood on the political
battlefield. The Northern banner would read, "Majority rule." The Southern
banner would read, "Consent of the governed." What is interesting to any
student of politics is that both axioms are correct. Both represent a vital
component to the American experiment. What is even more interesting is that
they are both an expression of the same principle, yet it is the
understanding of that principle which makes them different. In other words,
the Northerners and the Southerners had a different understanding of good
government. They both claimed to be lovers and defenders of liberty, but
both did not mean the same thing. Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural
Address, said, "[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of
principle. "But certainly some differences of opinion are differences of
principle. In April, 1864, as the Civil War was in its third year, Lincoln
spoke at the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore on the consequences of a difference
of opinion becoming a difference of principle:

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the
American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for
liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing.With
some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with
himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may
mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of
other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible [sic]
things, called by the same name-liberty. And it follows that each of the
things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and
incompatible [sic] names-liberty and tyranny.
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep
thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the
same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black
one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the
word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us
human creatures; and all professing to love liberty.
dan17 Wrote: Jun 05, 2013 12:08 PM
Of coarse I also know that we should avoid "foreign entanglements" (GW).
dan17 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 3:49 PM
The grievances outlined in the Declaration were crying out for justice from a people that had no representation in a tyrannical and brutal absentee government. One could say that the slaves in the South deserved a declaration of their own, don't you agree??
Englishlass Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 6:52 PM
Ray133 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 6:53 PM
I'm convinced that slavery is bad for both the slave owners and the slaves. It's good for the U.S.A. that slavery is no longer permitted in our nation. If we are taken over by Islam, we'll see slavery again and much worse things than slavery. Some states may need to secede in order to free ourselves from what has become an oppressive federal government not faithful to the Constitution which long guided this land. It appears that Obama's goal is to put us under the rule of Islam. He's pushing us nearer national death by unpayable debt every day. -- Ray Downen.
dan17 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 10:56 PM
How so? Seems like all your comments start with BS. Please provide some insight.
dan17 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 10:59 PM
A Muslim he is not. Although, he is an apologist for their cause -- useful
idiots, don't you know. Ironically, they use him in the same manner.
dan17 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 11:02 PM
If it had not been for the issue of slavery, I don't believe we would have had a catastrophic civil war. Of coarse, the issue of states rights would have continued to cause profound disruptions in our society. However, I think they would have been resolved without an all out civil war. Our "peculiar institution" was destined for a day of reckoning from the moment the Declaration of Independence was penned. Lincoln was ambivalent about how to deal with slavery at first, even though he was personally opposed to it. As the war continued to grind on, he finally came around to the total humanity of the cause. Tragically, the war was inevitable, and mostly because of the evils of slavery.
Ken2168 Wrote: Jun 05, 2013 12:49 AM
He didn't 'come around' in the slightest. Lincoln and Congress were both clear that they didn't care at all about slavery, and that they were fighting for one purpose--to suppress the South and keep the tribute flowing. If Lincoln "came around" he wouldn't have let West Virginia vote on the issue, nor would he have continued to court Kentucky and Maryland.
pascagoulapappy Wrote: Jun 05, 2013 1:26 AM
What about the slaves in the states outside the South?
dan17 Wrote: Jun 05, 2013 10:35 AM
You confuse tactics with principals. His principals were as sound as his tactics were elastic.
pascagoulapappy Wrote: Jun 05, 2013 11:17 AM
The end does not justify the means. And the atrocities committed by Sherman, Beast Butler, and other dammphukkenyankees have nothing to do with school administrators.
Broadus Wrote: Jun 05, 2013 11:33 AM
there would not have been a Civil War if the northern states (Lincoln) had not decided to tell southern states how to live and what they could and not do.

southern states would have formed a separate country and waited to be attacked and invaded by the northern states (USA) under Lincoln....

just as America has always done and is doing at this very minute....

involving themselves in other countries affairs because they want to tell everyone in the world how to live.

the U.S. government has never been satisfied with just running their own country....they are driven to force everyone to live as they feel they should live.

the USA (northern states) began playing God and still plays that role...
Nam65-66 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 3:05 PM
Winners don't have war crimes trials.End of that argument.
John2038 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 2:54 PM
If seceding was not to be allowed, just how did the state of West Virginia come into existence?
Englishlass Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 6:52 PM
ILLEGALLY, with the collusion of the Northern Government who granted them that "right". It should have NEVER happened. Actually West Va was stolen from the state of Virginia in an act of theft.