Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And again with the insults. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal of the Declarations of Causes documents. You haven't posted a single fact yet.

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve. It's always been one side's story or the other. People have to choose which side they want to believe in I guess. There's just as much "fact" on both sides of this argument. But what was really right back then Steve? Going to war against the South and burning down their cities and homes for choosing to leave in peace? According to the Constitution, they had that right. Would you condone a nasty war like that today if Obama wanted to invade Arizona for passing their law and enforcing it? Come on, you're smart enough to say "No" to that I'd hope! Anytime the government resorts to military use against it's own people in order to force policy on them - it's wrong. As you can see, Lincoln's goal of keeping the Union as a whole hasn't really kept us together. It's just lead to a back and forth argument that will never die. It's pointless to continue to argue. You'll never get me to see things your way and you'll never see things mine.

When you grow up in a city that had a lovely street called Monument Ave. lined with beautiful statues of some of the Civil war's greatest Southern Generals trashed with a statue of Arthur Ashe holding a tennis racket and a book, maybe you'd understand! It was obviously done as a slap in the face to anybody who has respect for the South. Or when Robert E. Lee Blvd got it's name changed to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to appease the blacks in the city and once again slap the face of Southern respect!

Richmond was the Capital of the Confederacy. It's also the city I grew up in a long time ago. Now it's being dismounted by sheer ignorance and people who for some reason believe the war was fought on the grounds of slavery. That's just ignorant BS! It's these same people who want the truth about the Civil war to be swept away. Funny how it's not us good ole boy Southerners that want it changed. We have nothing to hide. We want it to stay the way it is. It's history after all and a part of the foundation of the US and the way it is today. Love it or leave it!

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve. It's always been one side's story or the other. People have to choose which side they want to believe in I guess. There's just as much "fact" on both sides of this argument. But what was really right back then Steve? Going to war against the South and burning down their cities and homes for choosing to leave in peace? According to the Constitution, they had that right. Would you condone a nasty war like that today if Obama wanted to invade Arizona for passing their law and enforcing it? Come on, you're smart enough to say "No" to that I'd hope! Anytime the government resorts to military use against it's own people in order to force policy on them - it's wrong. As you can see, Lincoln's goal of keeping the Union as a whole hasn't really kept us together. It's just lead to a back and forth argument that will never die. It's pointless to continue to argue. You'll never get me to see things your way and you'll never see things mine.

When you grow up in a city that had a lovely street called Monument Ave. lined with beautiful statues of some of the Civil war's greatest Southern Generals trashed with a statue of Arthur Ashe holding a tennis racket and a book, maybe you'd understand! It was obviously done as a slap in the face to anybody who has respect for the South. Or when Robert E. Lee Blvd got it's name changed to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to appease the blacks in the city and once again slap the face of Southern respect!

Richmond was the Capital of the Confederacy. It's also the city I grew up in a long time ago. Now it's being dismounted by sheer ignorance and people who for some reason believe the war was fought on the grounds of slavery. That's just ignorant BS! It's these same people who want the truth about the Civil war to be swept away. Funny how it's not us good ole boy Southerners that want it changed. We have nothing to hide. We want it to stay the way it is. It's history after all and a part of the foundation of the US and the way it is today. Love it or leave it!

Why don't you calm down, Steve is not your enemy. I happen to believe the Civil War was fought over slavery myself, always seemed pretty obvious. But no matter, if you disagree, that's ok. Just be civil.

Neal

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Why don't you calm down, Steve is not your enemy. I happen to believe the Civil War was fought over slavery myself, always seemed pretty obvious. But no matter, if you disagree, that's ok. Just be civil.

Neal

Was I not being civil? Certainly opposing Steve's views, and apparently yours, doesn't make me uncivil? I'm not trash talking anybody and don't plan on it. I wanted to drop the issue earlier but Steve persisted in continuing the argument.

BTW Neal, the Civil War was fought over States rights. I realize that slavery falls into that, but it was not the main cause for the war. It would appear that you've fallen victim to the same liberal teachings the rest of us have. I had to put down "what they wanted to hear" on my tests just to pass grade school - Not what I believed to be right and what other publications have stated. Instead of school systems teaching BOTH sides of the argument, they only teach the one side that won the war's argument. But like I've said, the victor is not always right. They just had better numbers on their side. And in the case of the Civil War - The repeating rifle.

Why do I support States rights? Simple. Because what affects the people in one state doesn't necessarily affect the people in another. Therefore they are ignorant to the problem. For instance, it's simple for people up north to condemn Arizona about its stance with illegal immigration. They don't have to contend with the problem themselves. It may even bolster their numbers to have these people given a free pass to vote democratic on the next election! I would imagine they would have a different opinion if they had to face the problem on a daily basis though. It's not like their jobs are being sold out to the lowest bidder who's willing to work for less than minimum wage!

Honestly, I think Arizona should just abandon their new law and just change it to say that illegal immigration is OK - just not here. Offer the illegals bus fare to New York State, Michigan, Vermont, and Maine. Let those people chew on the bleak reality they seem to be so in favor of. I doubt they'd be so welcoming. Bottom line - It's so easy to sit in judgment over others when the problems aren't your own.

And as Forrest Gump said best, "That's all I have to say about that"

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by thorn69

BTW Neal, the Civil War was fought over States rights. I realize that slavery falls into that, but it was not the main cause for the war. It would appear that you've fallen victim to the same liberal teachings the rest of us have. I had to put down "what they wanted to hear" on my tests just to pass grade school - Not what I believed to be right and what other publications have stated. Instead of school systems teaching BOTH sides of the argument, they only teach the one side that won the war's argument. But like I've said, the victor is not always right. They just had better numbers on their side. And in the case of the Civil War - The repeating rifle.

And for the umteenth time: Then cite the evidence! Otherwise, everything you said is nothing more than conjecture.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

And for the umteenth time: Then cite the evidence! Otherwise, everything you said is nothing more than conjecture.

The simple fact that Lincoln didn't free any slaves until mid-war should be evident enough that the war was not fought over slavery. Lincoln himself said something along the lines of wishing he could end the war without freeing a single slave at one point during the war when he thought it was getting too nasty to stomach. This is further evidence that slavery was not Lincoln's main focal point for going to war. Why would he mentally abandon his main goal, if slavery was his main goal, for going to war? That doesn't make any sense at all! If that was the case, he would have just retreated and ended the war!

So again, for the umpteenth time, it was fought over the States seceding themselves from the Union. You have to remember that the north won the war so it was therefore given the customary "bragging rights" that most winners tend to get. However, there was quite a bit of guilt in the stomachs of many northerners after the war and there is plenty of evidence of this. They had to come up with some sort of nonsensical motive to justify their invasion of the South and for all the mass murder, raping, pillaging, burning cities to the ground, etc... So, to make themselves look noble rather than barbaric the whole "we did it to free the slaves and reunite the country" themes emerged AFTER the war. Do you really think they'd ever admit any form of guilt - especially when they won?

Just answer this: Why was the war fought over slavery when the Southern States had already seceded from the Union? The South was a separate country at that point. So why would the northerners really care about slavery anymore in THEIR own country? It was gone when the South left! The north had their own country to run anyway they saw fit and if they didn't want slavery then so be it. So, why invade another country and conquer it? So there's further evidence for you that the war wasn't fought over slavery.

I do agree that slavery falls into the mix but it wasn't the single focal point of the war. Even Lincoln himself didn't free a single slave until mid-war. So there's further evidence that it was not really about slavery, at least to him.

Honestly, I think up north the war was fought over financial reasons and control of the South. In the South, the war was fought for the States rights to secede from the Union and to escape the hands of a very controlling and tyrannical north. In a way, the north may have freed individual black slaves but it still enslaved the entire South as a whole AFTER the war by still demanding cotton and other raw goods be farmed and delivered. It's quite ironic really.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by thorn69

The simple fact that Lincoln didn't free any slaves until mid-war should be evident enough that the war was not fought over slavery. Lincoln himself said something along the lines of wishing he could end the war without freeing a single slave at one point during the war when he thought it was getting too nasty to stomach. This is further evidence that slavery was not Lincoln's main focal point for going to war. Why would he mentally abandon his main goal, if slavery was his main goal, for going to war? That doesn't make any sense at all! If that was the case, he would have just retreated and ended the war!

So again, for the umpteenth time, it was fought over the States seceding themselves from the Union. You have to remember that the north won the war so it was therefore given the customary "bragging rights" that most winners tend to get. However, there was quite a bit of guilt in the stomachs of many northerners after the war and there is plenty of evidence of this. They had to come up with some sort of nonsensical motive to justify their invasion of the South and for all the mass murder, raping, pillaging, burning cities to the ground, etc... So, to make themselves look noble rather than barbaric the whole "we did it to free the slaves and reunite the country" themes emerged AFTER the war. Do you really think they'd ever admit any form of guilt - especially when they won?

Just answer this: Why was the war fought over slavery when the Southern States had already seceded from the Union? The South was a separate country at that point. So why would the northerners really care about slavery anymore in THEIR own country? It was gone when the South left! The north had their own country to run anyway they saw fit and if they didn't want slavery then so be it. So, why invade another country and conquer it? So there's further evidence for you that the war wasn't fought over slavery.

I do agree that slavery falls into the mix but it wasn't the single focal point of the war. Even Lincoln himself didn't free a single slave until mid-war. So there's further evidence that it was not really about slavery, at least to him.

Honestly, I think up north the war was fought over financial reasons and control of the South. In the South, the war was fought for the States rights to secede from the Union and to escape the hands of a very controlling and tyrannical north. In a way, the north may have freed individual black slaves but it still enslaved the entire South as a whole AFTER the war by still demanding cotton and other raw goods be farmed and delivered. It's quite ironic really.

I'm tired of typing those quote brackets, so I'm going to answer here in block form.

The Emancipation Proclaimation, as I said in an earlier response, freed no slave. It was a political maneuver to persuade the south that defeat was inevitable.

To your second point, for the umpteenth time, why did the southern states seceed? Steve has already done the hard work for us, and posted the actual words from the states. Fear of the abolition of slavery. No 'bragging rights' about it. It is their own words.

There was no invasion. The confederate forces fired first. Also, no nation, not France, Great Britian or any other world power recognized the south's right to seceed to the union. Why would the union, then, accept it, especially after being attacked?

History's facts are against you. You can skew them as you like to prove your point, but the fact of the matter is very clear, whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I'm tired of typing those quote brackets, so I'm going to answer here in block form.

The Emancipation Proclaimation, as I said in an earlier response, freed no slave. It was a political maneuver to persuade the south that defeat was inevitable.

To your second point, for the umpteenth time, why did the southern states seceed? Steve has already done the hard work for us, and posted the actual words from the states. Fear of the abolition of slavery. No 'bragging rights' about it. It is their own words.

There was no invasion. The confederate forces fired first. Also, no nation, not France, Great Britian or any other world power recognized the south's right to seceed to the union. Why would the union, then, accept it, especially after being attacked?

History's facts are against you. You can skew them as you like to prove your point, but the fact of the matter is very clear, whether you like it or not.

To answer you for the umpteeth time... (Made it bold with underlining so you don't miss it this time)

The South seceded because of a controlling and tyrannical north.

The people up north were ignorant to the way things had to be done in the South. They wanted to control the South through legislative bills and taxes that would ensure the South would go into poverty. This would allow the north to have further control and power over the South. Money is power and when the South was garnishing in more power than the north at that time through slave labor then the north wanted it stopped at all costs. It's not like the people up north all grew a heart for the black man! This is evident enough in our history considering black people were never really "equals" to white people in any state until the 1960s civil rights era.

Lincoln sent war ships into to Charleston Bay and told them to invade the harbor. That is an act of war. You have no problems with this today when somebody invades Israels waters do you! Quit being so "pick and choose"! You can't have your cake and eat it to in this discussion. Sorry!

[Bilge_Rat]

Thorn69,

You are assuming the South had the right to secede, the federal government did not recognize the right of the rebel states to leave the Union unilaterally. They viewed that action as illegal.

If the Southern states really wanted to assert or confirm their legal right to withdraw from the Union, the proper channel was to the US Supreme Court which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution

so yes, you are right that the immediate cause was whether the secessionist states had the right to leave, but that begs the question, why did they leave in the first place? It was because they were worried that the election of Lincoln as president would endanger the institution of slavery.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Thorn69,

You are assuming the South had the right to secede, the federal government did not recognize the right of the rebel states to leave the Union unilaterally. They viewed that action as illegal.

If the Southern states really wanted to assert or confirm their legal right to withdraw from the Union, the proper channel was to the US Supreme Court which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution

so yes, you are right that the immediate cause was whether the secessionist states had the right to leave, but that begs the question, why did they leave in the first place? It was because they were worried that the election of Lincoln as president would endanger the institution of slavery.

They didn't recognize the right to secede until AFTER it was already done. That's sort of like how King George didn't give the colonies the right to secede from Great Britain to form their own nation. If the South had won the war, the north's law's and how they interpreted them wouldn't have made a damn now would it?! Just like we don't give a damn how Britain runs it's country today. You also have to consider the bias intereptation that the north took into account when reading over the Constitution. It was the north that decided what the law was and its legality - not the South's.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Thorn69,

so yes, you are right that the immediate cause was whether the secessionist states had the right to leave, but that begs the question, why did they leave in the first place? It was because they were worried that the election of Lincoln as president would endanger the institution of slavery.

Spoken like a true northerner still clinging to his justification for the invasion, mass murder, rape, pillaging, and burning down of Southern cities and towns. "We did it for the black man"! Yeah right! That's why it took another century for the black man to get rights? Get real! I don't buy it!

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Was I not being civil? Certainly opposing Steve's views, and apparently yours, doesn't make me uncivil? I'm not trash talking anybody and don't plan on it. I wanted to drop the issue earlier but Steve persisted in continuing the argument.

BTW Neal, the Civil War was fought over States rights. I realize that slavery falls into that, but it was not the main cause for the war. It would appear that you've fallen victim to the same liberal teachings the rest of us have. I had to put down "what they wanted to hear" on my tests just to pass grade school - Not what I believed to be right and what other publications have stated. Instead of school systems teaching BOTH sides of the argument, they only teach the one side that won the war's argument. But like I've said, the victor is not always right. They just had better numbers on their side. And in the case of the Civil War - The repeating rifle.

Why do I support States rights? Simple. Because what affects the people in one state doesn't necessarily affect the people in another. Therefore they are ignorant to the problem. For instance, it's simple for people up north to condemn Arizona about its stance with illegal immigration. They don't have to contend with the problem themselves. It may even bolster their numbers to have these people given a free pass to vote democratic on the next election! I would imagine they would have a different opinion if they had to face the problem on a daily basis though. It's not like their jobs are being sold out to the lowest bidder who's willing to work for less than minimum wage!

Honestly, I think Arizona should just abandon their new law and just change it to say that illegal immigration is OK - just not here. Offer the illegals bus fare to New York State, Michigan, Vermont, and Maine. Let those people chew on the bleak reality they seem to be so in favor of. I doubt they'd be so welcoming. Bottom line - It's so easy to sit in judgment over others when the problems aren't your own.

And as Forrest Gump said best, "That's all I have to say about that"

States rights was just a convenient excuse. Countries dont go to war over whether certain powers should be exercised at the state or federal level. The primary cause was slavery. The southern radicals like Senator Robert Rhett who pushed South carolina to declare independence wanted not only to preserve slavery, but to bring back the African slave trade.

Whether individual states had a right to secede was legally debatable, you had as many argument on one side as the other. The federal government was perfectly within its rights to say individual states do not have a right to secede and will be brought back into the Union by force, if required.

The irony of course is that Lincoln was quite ready to live with slavery to preserve the Union. If the southern states had not attempted to break away, it would have been pretty much business as usual. As late as the summer of 1862, Lincoln would have been willing to maintain slavery in the South in exchange for a return of the rebel states to the Union.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve.

You started this by claiming the Civil War was not about slavery. For everyone's benefit I'll repeat the facts that you claim are only "he said/she said".

Texas

the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression:

South Carolina

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Alabama

WHEREAS, anti-slavery agitation persistently continued in the non-slaveholding States of this Union...

Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

I'm still waiting.