My fault for forgetting. Since 1820 there was already Liberia. :sunny:

Which is why I directly quoted what they said, not someone's interpretation of it.

That's nice, but they said it was because of slavery. What that may or may not have entailed, it does not excuse Southern Apologists for saying it had nothing to do with slavery, or that slavery was a secondary issue.

As John Adams said during the Boston Massacre trial, "Facts are stubborn things." What one side or the other thinks or says, what they said is the bottom line, and you can read exactly what they said.

I don't know whether he was really excluded from Southern ballots or not, but if he wasn't, why not? The only logical explanation would be that the Southern legislatures had already decided that would be the case, which means that they were against Lincoln from the start. Why?

Four years earlier, in 1856, Republican candidate John C. Fremont recieved no votes at all in the South. Why? Because the Republican Party was created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska act, which would repeal the Popular Sovereignty issue of the Missouri Compromise. Yes, the Southern States felt they were being cheated. They wanted a new Slave State to be created for every new Free State. They hated the fact that pretty much all the potential new States wanted nothing to do with slavery. Oh, there's that word again. So they solidly opposed any Republican as being an Abolitionist. They opposed Fremont in 1856, because of his party's attitude toward slavery. They opposed Lincoln in 1860 because of his party's attitued toward slavery. For them it was all about slavery. Yes, slavery was an economic issue, which made it also about economics, but it was also the major economic issue, if not the sole one.

What? Lincoln didn't call for any troops when he won. He had no authority at all. He didn't call for troops to put down the rebellion (of course Southerners called it "invading the South") until they opened fire on Fort Sumter. But the Southern States started seceding long before Lincoln took office; in fact shortly after his election. They refused to be in the same country with him, long before his call for troops and long before the beginning of what they called "Lincoln's War". They seceded as soon as he was elected. Why? Because he was a Republican, and the Republican Party was the Abolition Party. It was, as they said when they did it, because of Slavery.

Yes it was, and when the Framers of the Constitution tried to limit it, the Southern States said that any limiting of Slavery would lead to them refusing to sign. They wanted to have slaves be counted toward their representation in Congress, even though they refused to count said slaves as anything other than property. They forced the Northern States to bow to their will, since everyone was sure that, as Ben Franklin had said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "If we don't all hang together we will most assuredly all hang separately." The Southern States forced the rest to bow to their will on that point, and we ended up with the highly controversial '3/5 Rule'. All the struggle from that point on was directly concerned with slavery.

Yes there was a wrong way and a right way to deal with it. Secession just because a guy you didn't like got elected was definitely the wrong way.

Ok so not so new. :)

That's like taking a piece of land, throwing a bunch of Finns, Romanians and Spaniards there and saying "be people now!"

Oh wait, that has been tried already. It's called the EU.

Yeah, good point. :hmm2:

No, it's the exact opposite. The former slaves had rights after the country was founded, we had them before.

No get off my lawn you dirty Finn or I'll call Europol! :stare:
I am sick of you people who ride on rendeers on our Autobahn, and do nothing for Europe besides producing undestroyable Nokia phones, ridiculously hot women and weird music. And your saunas contribute to global warming!

You're thinking slavery, the south was thinking economic wealth and your ignoring the host of other serious issues that connected to how the south operated. Yes, the two are connected, but it was more than slavery in itself. In fact, a small percentage owned slaves.

The bigger issue, it really wasn't about slaves to Lincoln or most the north, they wanted it like it was, just wanted the north to have an unfair balance of power.

Many states didn't secede until after Lincoln called up troops, even asking the south for many troops, in doing so the entire south left, none of them would accept an army coming into their state. Check your fact, it was after this that the entire south left.

Lincoln got elected because a warped electoral system, like I said, he wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states.

Don't get me wrong, I deplore slavery, I'm glad it worked out like it did, the question is, another path existed before the war, numerous states were ready to do away with slavery the same as the north was doing, but radicals ended that option.

The scary thing is, what if it didn't work out, it could've gone the other way and totally ruined America, then we would be calling Lincoln a zero, not a hero. The sad fact is racism continued in full force long after the CW.

Of course slavery was tied to economics, and of course the Southern States were trying to stay alive, and of course they viewed the Northern States as trying to destroy their way of live. But the economics were tied to slavery, and that was the central issue.

My response is mostly to this statement: That is a flat statement, and it is flat wrong. As I said the first time, the war was over secession and preserving the Union, and the Southern States seceded over slavery. That is what they said at the time, and I don't think they had a reason to lie about it.

Not so. I'm sure there were power-hungry politicians in the North, just as I'm sure there were power-hungry politicians in the South. Lincoln, I'm equally sure, was concerned with preserving the Union for the simple reason that he was of the second generation following the Founders, and he firmly believed that whole "Hang together or hang separately" thing. I think he was sure that the country separated could not survive.

If, as you say, they just wanted to have an unfair balance of power, then you cannot attribute strictly bad motives to them and then assign strictly pure motives to the South. It's not fair to assume only the worst of one and only the best of the other.

I already know my fact(s). Seven States seceeded over Lincoln's election. Four (hardly "many" in the total) more seceeded after the call for troops. I don't assign any other motive than reaction to the call-up to the four. Of the seven, five listed the cause for secession, and every one of them put slavery as the primary reason.

So you're saying that Lincoln one because the election was rigged against him? Or did he win despite not beeing on the ballot in those states, which means the election must have been rigged in the northern states?

Lincoln got elected because the majority of the country voted for him. He handily won the popular and electoral votes. I used to think that he won because the Democrats were divided among several different candidates. This is true of the popular vote, but even if they were all combined Lincoln still would have carried the electoral vote. There is no evidence the election was rigged in Lincoln's favor. In fact you seem to be saying that in the South at least it was rigged against him.

And, as I said, what was the reason he wasn't on those ballots? I already gave my answer. I'm waiting for yours.

I'm also still waiting on my request for evidence to support your prior claim:
Not necessarily. Lincoln may have been remembered as the man who tried to save America and failed, while Jefferson Davis might have been remembered as the man who destroyed it.

Or the South may have succeeded, and two separate countries might have survived side-by-side. I don't dismiss any possibilities.

No one can argue against that.

Duh, you know the Europol is too busy investigating the speeding offences on your Autobahns to care. :O:

It's the Sami who ride the reindeers, you silly ethnocentric escargot eater.


Get on with the program, Nokia is Japanese. I read it in the Internuts, so it must be true and our media trying to tell us otherwise is a lie!

Beg to differ.


I'll have you know, our polkas have long traditions and the nonsense words are not a bug but a feature. Stop oppressing my culture or I'll tell a mod!


Yeah, but they also contribute on decreasing the world population by natural selection.

aka "The Ferret Krusher.":o:haha:

IT BURNS!

:har: JT's ferret krushing is the #1 cause of most of the global warming in Finland.

1789 US Constitution
1857 Scott vs. Sandford
1861-1865 US Civil war
1865 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Abolition of slavery)

Scott vs. Sandford:
In 1857 the slave Dred Scott was brought by his owner from the slave state Missouri to the free state Louisiana. Scott sued for his freedom and that of his family because of the move to a free state. US Supreme Court ruled back then that Scott has no legal standing because he is a being of an inferior order and that the mindset of the founding fathers was that:
“[T]hey were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
And a simple abolition of slavery would be unconstitutional anyway because it would expropriate owners of their property (slaves).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=60&page=393

If the Supreme Court would have made clear already in 1857 that equality before the law is a defining statement under the rule of law and that slavery is unjust, could that have prevented the Civil war which caused 500,000 deaths from going to happen?

I don’t think so. It probably would have even speeded-up the process of secession of the southern states. But the decision they made certainly did not help.

Supreme Courts don’t tend to be visionary and to be ahead of their times. So much for usurpers in black who legislate from the bench.

Lincoln is not to be blamed for having used the n-word back then.