The only thing it had to do with slavery was Lincoln and other abolitionists saw that slavery was making the South very rich. Lincoln imposed a tax directed at wealthy Southerners in order to reap that wealth away from the South to give away to the North.

Nobody in the US had a problem with slavery until they saw that OTHER people were becoming rich from it. Then the jealousy kicked in, and if you look you will see that 99% of the abolitionist originated up north where farming and agriculture was scarce. These people couldn't benefit from slavery so they became bitterly jealous of the South for profiting from it.

It was a Constitutional RIGHT to own and buy slaves at that time. Don't forget that it was Lincoln who invaded and ATTACKED the South and began the actual war. So why would anybody resort to armed combat first in a civil dispute unless they knew they were wrong? Usually the side that shoots first in that matter is the wrong side because they've allowed themselves to become so consumed with absolutism and deemed that violence is the only method to win their case.

What grounds would Lincoln have to attack the South, or why would the South secede from the north over slavery when it was still their legal RIGHT to buy and sell slaves according to the US Constitution of 1861? That doesn't make any sense at all!

Furthermore, all this nonsense about beating slaves is a bit much. Why would a Southern plantation owner buy a slave (which cost them quite a bit of money back then) just to blatantly beat and kill him? That makes no sense at all either. Besides, it was called "flogging". It was the common form of discipline used on EVERYBODY during that time period. Military deserters who were caught would be often be flogged in the same manner, if not shot, or hanged just the same. So much fiction has influenced the facts of what was real and what wasn't. I just don't see slave buyers beating slaves just to beat them. What good is an injured, sick, or dead slave when you're trying to make a profit off their labor? I think much of this is one or two incidents that ballooned up into something more than it really happened. I could be wrong but I'm betting I'm not since I'm using common sense and to think about much of this and not some biased liberal school book that was printed up north.

I'm just asking that people use some common sense and think for themselves about this. The popular opinion about things is not always right. In most cases it's wrong because people tend to believe in something because it's personally benefiting them. It's greed opinion and unfortunately that's what's popular. Just like I said before. If Nazi Germany had won the war, you'd be a strong believer in Nazism and anything else would be "crazy" sounding to you.

Like I've also said, blacks were treated just like slaves up in the north as well. This is documented. It wasn't until the 1960s civil rights movement that blacks were ever really "free" in the US and there were just as many segregated schools and water fountains in New York city as there ever was in Birmingham, Alabama believe it or not. All this racism AFTER the civil war. So quit trying to act like the people up north had a heart for the blacks and the people in the south didn't. That's what modern history is teaching people today and that's just wrong.

Fact: Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding forefathers added the RIGHTS to slavery into the US Constitution. They said that it troubled them to think about it but they found it to be a necessity for the foundation of our country. What the people in the South were doing was exactly what Franklin and Jefferson and all the others saw as a necessity for the country to grow. Therefore, Lincoln declared war on the South for practicing their Constitutional RIGHT if you're still thinking the war was about slavery. In either case, Lincoln was wrong to attack the South and what the South was doing was their Constitutional right at that time. Maybe not morally right, but I think I've shown several times now that the north didn't really have a problem with slavery as much as they had a problem with the people who were benefiting from it the most.

:roll:Wow
How someone could write that after the offer given above in #18 and endorsement of the value of that offer in......

Looks like nothing more than the "popular opinion" expressed by a man with one of the most post counts on this forum using his position, along with the aid of his moderator buddies to bully that opinion onto others. Here's a challenge for you Steve... Why don't you man-up and actually argue for the unpopular opinion for once? It's so easy to hide behind years and years of prejudice teachings that depict the losing side as being the wrong one!

Like I said before, it's people like Steve here who'd be the biggest Nazi supporter had they won. :nope:

Because Steve is not right in this case. He's ashamed of his own ancestry for practicing their Constitutional rights of that time and standing up in the face of tyrannical rule and refusing to be taxed unfairly on their Constitutional right to buy and own slaves. This tax is why the South seceded and Lincoln just couldn't allow that. The Union would have floundered without the South's money and their crops!

I find it deplorable that one would belittle his own ancestry. That's just sad. :nope:

Imagine if people like Steve here got their way in today's modern battle against a person's Constitutional right. Now the issue is firearms. People like Steve will side with the winning side because he's safe there. He has no real opinion or credibility in my book. I don't associate myself with people that can't think outside their box that was erected by someone else.

:o Yeah, wow. :roll:

The first seven states seceeded upon Lincoln's election, several months before he took office. Exactly how did he impose this tax?

The other four seceeded specifically because of Lincoln's call for volunteers to "Put down the rebellion."

You need to provide documentation for everything you say on a subject this touchy.

The northern states tried to outlaw slavery in the Constitution itself, seventy years before the secession began. They certainly weren't jealous then.

Actually the South fired first, attacking the Federal fort in Charleston Bay.

You're absolutely right. See my post above.

The US Constitution was written in 1787. They agreed to Southern terms at the time because they felt that without ALL the states joining in they would fail. As Benjamin Franklin had said during the revolution, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." Lincoln was of the very next generation, and that feeling still prevailed, which is why he felt the need to put the Union first ahead of the Abolition questiion.

I don't know why Southern owners would beat slaves, but the photographic evidence makes the proper question "Why DID they?" Because they most certainly did.

Please read the post I referred you to, and then you can ask that same question of yourself.

Only because they had no choice.

They felt they had to bow to the demands of the southern States or lose the whole country. Read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention.

Before you post what you've been spoon-fed, follow your own advice and read what they wrote at the time, both the Constitutional arguments and the arguments leading to the Civil War.

Again, read my linked post and answer my statements directly, one-at-a-time, and use documents from that time. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

Where does "resigned" fall in this ranking?

Can you back that up with facts, or is it just your opinion?

Popularity of opinion has nothing to do with it. I look at everything that is said in every case, and I judge it accordingly. Unlike you, I have nothing to lie about.

Again, opinion, or do you have facts. I don't cast aspersions on you. I did say when I thought you were wrong, but that's not the same thing. And as for nazis, I'm not the one who recommended killing people just for being in the country illegally.

Again, you need to show factual evidence of this tax that was imposed before Lincoln took office.

[/quote]I find it deplorable that one would belittle his own ancestry. That's just sad. :nope:[/quote]
I'm not belittling anything, nor am I ashamed of it. Like all history, it just is. Or was.

So you don't associate with yourself? You are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.

"Constitutional right?" Where in the Constitution does it say one man has the right to deny another his own rights by "owning" him? Chapter and verse, please.

Now please answer my arguments with actual facts. If you can't show proper documentation to back up what you say, then you are stating opinion, not fact. Lincoln passed a tax that made the southern states seceed? You've said it several times, now prove it. Until you do, it's all hot air.

And while we're on the subject, what kind of discussion is it wherein one party produces evidence and the other counters it with name-calling and derision. Do you actually have any facts at all?

At the bottom, I would say. On the other hand, Like LBJ, Nixon was a good administrator. His biggest problems seems to have been paranoia.

As to Impeachment, two presidents have been impeached so far, and in both cases it was a witchhunt by opposing parties. And in both cases they were exonerated. Being found guilty and removed from office would have been bad for them, but since "impeachment" does not equal "conviction", I don't rate them because of that. I'm not a big fan of either one of them, but I don't think that's the criterion that should be used here.

Besides, it's never good to rate someone of your own generation. That is best left for the future.

How did this become a Civil War thread!?!?!?!? :damn:

Because someone with an axe to grind wasn't satisfied with saying he didn't like two presidents, but felt the need to rant about his pet cause.

That's the way it happens sometimes.

My fault I guess. Just pointing out that the ranking of Presidents is flawed depending on where you go and who you talk to. Others posted to argue my stance on why Lincoln and Grant should be further down on the list. But oh well, that's how these threads work sometimes. People feel the need to force those of us without the popular opinion into their large group of lemmings. Sorry, but I don't want to be a member of that cliche. It just leads to hypocritical changes when they eventually fall. Sooner or later the unpopular opinion will become the popular one and I'm gonna laugh when all these folks jump ship and join up with those they opposed for so long. There's nothing better than watching the Clinton two-step take place! It's become quite a popular political dance I hear! :rotfl2:

And YOU'RE NOT guilty of the same exact thing? How dishonest of you! But I expected nothing less.

BTW, to answer a part of your very tiresome post from earlier. It was called the "Fugitive Slavery Clause". It was in the US Constitution. Look it up if you're unaware of what this is or what it was. Only a few states (3 of them) had banned slavery (all of them up North) but it was Federal law that the government had to help slave catchers retrieve their runaway property even in states that weren't participating in the slavery trade.

Also, Lincoln never got around to imposing the tax on the South. He stated before his election what he would do if he was elected. Of course when he got elected the South knew what it was facing. An Obama of the past, Lincoln was a tyrant who sought to steal from the wealthy and give to the poor. Lincoln was the nations first socialist puppet. Really, he didn't care about slavery, or that it existed, he cared that it wasn't making him or any of the people up north rich. Just like the people of today don't really care who's rich or not. They just care that they aren't and are bitterly jealous they don't have any money. Of course when they get money they want to convert to the republican/pro-capitalist side of thinking since it benefits them. Why would they want to give their money away to any poor person? :roll: And there's the Clinton two-step for ya if you didn't know how to do that dance. :rotfl2:

So, impeachment is above resignation, and resignation is above impeachment with conviction, then? Seems this ranking system could be improved. As could any ranking system.

And each generation will rank the preceding ones differently. I don't think there will ever be a definitive best-to-worst presidential ranking system.

So pray tell why the fugitive slave act was passed?

Resigned would certainly chuck you down a notch as well, unless it was for some legit reason (sickness, etc).

So Clinton is a two termer, Impeached, so chuck him in the 1-termer pile, perhaps. And Nixon is a 2 termer who resigned under impeachment, so he's a 1-termer in terms quality as well. Both are at the bottom of the 1 termers, though, or even underneath for the same reason.

Fair?

thorn69 posits something that no thinking person can agree with, hence instant derailment.

SS has no agenda at all. Gotta love thorn69 saying that he'd be a nazi supporter had THEY won. Absurd. Facts are facts. Southern secession had the fate of slavery as the primary cause.

Thorn claims it was the Morrill Tariff that made the South break apart, even though it was passed AFTER the bulk of States had already left (which is precisely how it passed (signed 2 days before Lincoln took office, BTW) since the reduced congress was unbalanced to the North politically then.

Quit while you're only behind a lot.

Not at all. You have every right to your opinion on Lincoln and Grant, and I fully support your right to that opinion. You didn't wait for someone to disagree; you launched into a tirade on slavery right from the start.

An interesting accusation, but you still have provided no facts for any of your claims, about the war or about me. And you end with another attack. I could care less about opinions, popular or otherwise. Facts are what I'm interested in. Where are yours?

Believe what you want but you're only making yourself look foolish. The South didn't secede from the north over slavery. It was their constitutional right to buy and own slaves at that time. You're logic doesn't make any sense at all. Unfair taxes targeted at wealthy Southerners is what caused the Southern states to secede from the north. All of it falls under states rights and US Constitutional rights. Slavery was mixed into all of this because people had the right to buy and sell slaves, but that one thing had very little if anything to do with the want to secede from the Union.

@Tak Shin - I've said before that slavery was thought to be a necessity for building the foundations of our nation. This is why it was added to the Constitution. The north depended on slavery just as much as the South. But once people got jealous about how prosperous people in the South were getting off slavery - something had to be done to stop it. It was never the fact that those people grew a heart and wanted it to stop. They were bitterly jealous of the growth in the South and making only a few coins in a sweat shop up north as a white man didn't seem right when you saw another white man in the South living the high life off doing very little himself.

But what's changed? Today we don't call it slavery but in essence everyone is a slave to somebody. You make like 1/1000th that your employer makes most likely. You work for him just like a slave had to work for his master. You hate him for being rich and powerful and making you work so hard for your keep but you remain quite about it because you know that only fools bite the hand that feeds them! So we don't call it slavery and before someone states that you're not forced to work I think you're wrong. Try to live a life without a job in the country and see if you don't land in jail eventually. You still owe taxes believe it or not. Imagine all the homeless people going to go to Federal prison under Obama's health care plan. Can't pay for health care you get fined. Don't pay the fine - Go to prison and still get fined! That's freedom? Give me a break! :rotfl2:

Derailing threads? Only all the time. And every time someone has called me on it I've apologised.

You expected "nothing less"? You seem bent on branding me as opinionated, and yet you haven't once backed up any of your opinions with facts. Fair enough, a little about me. I came to a point some time ago where I realized that I knew a lot less than I thought I did. If you had read my sig last month you would have seen "They say the more you learn the less you know. I've reached a point in my life where I've learned so much I don't know anything." While couched in humor, I fully believe that to be true. If I can't show facts, I try not to espouse an opinion, because I've been wrong far too many times for my own satisfaction. I once had a sig that was mildly offensive to some. When someone pointed that out I immediately apologised and took it down.

Does this mean I think I'm a good person? Not at all. I like to say I could never be an "ist" of any kind because I would first have to find someone who was lower on the scale than I am.

I read from you 'Stones' thread that you are married. Are you a good husband? If you have children, are you a good father? If so, then you are a better person than I am. I was a lousy husband and a mediocre father. I'm not overly bright, but I am blessed and cursed with an outstanding memory. Blessed because I can remember where I read things and know where to look them up; cursed because I still remember stupid things I did fifty years ago. That's embarrasing.

These days I try not to have an opinion on anything. If there aren't facts to show it, then I don't know and neither does anybody else.

Is there a God? I don't know. I won't deny it, but I would like to see some evidence.

UFOs? Kennedy conspiracy? Trade Center? OJ? I don't know. I look at the evidence that is there and it's inconclusive in every case.

I'm well aware of the Fugitive Slave Law. Again, it was a compromise that was forced by the Southern States if they were going to join. Are you saying that part of secession was about that? If so, then it was about slavery after all.

Quote please? When did he say this? If I'm wrong of course I'll admit it.

Again, please give actual evidence. You seem to like to accuse people without any.

Also, please actually answer my comments in the other thread. The Southern States' Declarations of Causes? Any real comment, or just more diatribe?

And so, the Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850, which sought to achieve political balance between states relying upon forced labor and those not. This five-part legislative peace lasted until the Kansas-Missouri Act of 1854, which insenced both sides of the argument. At it's core was the economic reality of the slave-based agricultural system and it's survival. As such, the right to own slaves was the central issue of every event that lead to the beginning of the American Civil War, even by your own admission.

Quo erat demonstratum.