The civil war, and Ron Paul

uscitizen said:
That was thrown into the mix before it was over. But not an origional cause.

Lincoln needed the support of the churchies. Republicans never change.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. Ok. I wonder why cypress mentioned it just now as a something that could have presented the entire problem? he's probably just on crack. :rolleyes:

We all know it was the main reason.
 
AssHatZombie said:
What does freeing slaves have to do with it? I thought it wasn't about slavery?
Click to expand...


I refuse to re-type issues I've already addressed. You're another one who didn't bother to read my post.

It was Ron Paul that connected the issue of slavery to Lincoln's decision to raise troops to put down an insurrection. Hence, the slam on paul's hypotheitical mental masturbation.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Include cypress then. He thinks freeing the slaves might have prevented the whole secession issue.
Click to expand...


You didn't read a word of the original post.

It was Ron Paul who mistakely thought that freeing the slaves, was somehow tied to Lincoln's decision to raise troops to put down an insurrection. I was riffing off Paul's poor understanding of history, by mentioning some stupid hypothetical about freeing the slaves in the 1850s.
 
Sigh. No. He used it as an issue to keep them there. God you're a fucking moron. Go to your local community college and sign up for US history. For all things holy! The issue was whether or not the federal government could tell the states what to do. The fed government said "yes" and South Carolina said "no" and then decided as a state to suceede from the union and they got other states to join them. God. US History 101 moron. Did you attend college at all?

AssHatZombie said:
He compromised slavery to keep them in the union? Must have been a big part of the issue then.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SouthernBelle82 said:
Sigh. No. He used it as an issue to keep them there.
Click to expand...
Why? Had other states seceeded over the issue?
God you're a fucking moron. Go to your local community college and sign up for US history. For all things holy! The issue was whether or not the federal government could tell the states what to do. The fed government said "yes" and South Carolina said "no" and then decided as a state to suceede from the union and they got other states to join them. God. US History 101 moron. Did you attend college at all?
Click to expand...

But it wasn't just an abstract discussion. It was over an actual issue: SLAVERY.

doy
 
uscitizen said:
The Civil War ? If you think that then as I believe it was Desh said, you need to go back to school.
But then right leaners seem to be very ignorant on history, it gets in the way of their ideals.
Click to expand...


He said freeing slaves might have prevented it. It must have been SOMETHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY then.

It was primarily about the issue of slavery. YES it was about secession, OVER THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY. You go to school, ass.
 
AssHatZombie said:
He said freeing slaves might have prevented it. It must have been SOMETHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY then.

It was primarily about the issue of slavery. YES it was about secession, OVER THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY. You go to school, ass.
Click to expand...


He said freeing slaves might have prevented it. It must have been SOMETHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY then.

Mighta, coulda, shoulda, woulda. Its mental masturbation over a hypothetical.

RP was directly asked it Linclon's decsion to raise troops and fight in 1861 was a mistake.

Ron Paul says it was a mistake.

Here was the actual historical facts Lincoln was faced with. From the minute he took office, the south was already in open rebellion, they had already susceeded from the Union, and they were firing artillery at a federal american military fort.

Linclon responded by asking to raise troops to put down the insurrection.

Ron Paul says that was a mistake. Evidently, Linclon should have let the rebellion and susceession continue, should have allowed american forts to be attacked, and should have let the nation splinter in two.

Saying what shoulda, coulda, or mighta been done in 1858, 1848, or 1838 is irrelevant. That's not what linclon was faced with at the moment he was sworn into office.
 
***sigh***

uscitizen said:
The Civil War ? If you think that then as I believe it was Desh said, you need to go back to school.
But then right leaners seem to be very ignorant on history, it gets in the way of their ideals.
Click to expand...



whether or not you like or respect asshat...sorry USC et al...he is correct saying the Civil War was sparked over the 'Slavery' issue...however it was not slavery in the South that was the main issue...it was the expansion of slavery into the new Western Territories of New Mexico,California and Utah recently won during the Mexican War of 1846-1848...
The North did not want to compete with slave labor...this was the main issue of debate the night before the Civil War started!
 
Cypress said:
He said freeing slaves might have prevented it. It must have been SOMETHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY then.

Mighta, coulda, shoulda, woulda. Its mental masturbation over a hypothetical.

RP was directly asked it Linclon's decsion to raise troops and fight in 1861 was a mistake.

Ron Paul says it was a mistake.

Here was the actual historical facts Lincoln was faced with. From the minute he took office, the south was already in open rebellion, they had already suseed from the Union, and they were firing artillery at a federal american military fort.

Linclon responded by asking to raise troops to put down the insurrection.

Ron Paul says that was a mistake. Evidently, Linclon should have let the rebellion and susceession continue, should have allowed american forts to be attacked, and should have let the nation splinter in two.

Saying what shoulda, coulda, or mighta been done in 1858, 1848, or 1838 is irrelevant. That's not what linclon was faced with at the moment he was sworn into office.
Click to expand...


Im just saying it had a lot to do with slavery.
 
Battleborne said:
whether or not you like or respect asshat...sorry USC et al...he is correct saying the Civil War was sparked over the 'Slavery' issue...however it was not slavery in the South that was the main issue...it was the expansion of slavery into the new Western Territories of New Mexico,California and Utah recently won during the Mexican War of 1846-1848...
The North did not want to compete with slave labor...this was the main issue of debate the night before the Civil War started!
Click to expand...

:D

actually I kind of like asshat, he is a conspiracy nut but not too bad of a guy.
 
When John Brown invaded Harpers Ferry with the intent to supply arms to an army of slaves to revolt against their masters it created urgency in that particular issue between the North and South and more than contributed to the issues between the states, it created a martyr for the abolitionists bringing that particular issue to the fore, a festering wound that was going to be treated, one way or the other.

The Southern States fought to have new states included that were “Slave States” and felt that they were going to be marginalized in the Federal Government by new states created as “Free” States. They also felt that they were being “punished” using taxes for their views on that issue. It infused itself into every issue between the North and South of the time.

Pretending that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery is solely pretense created to take away from the sacrifice many made to free slaves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top