The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)
User: Not logged on
Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
User Info Enough On Lincoln; entered at 2018-02-13 07:19:25
Posts: 511
Registered: 2007-11-27 Nags Head for now
This was posted by a member here and I am sure they will chime in and won't name them but I thought it was worth saving.

Prior to Lincoln's armed incursion into the southern seceded states, there was no conflict at all at Ft Sumter. The fort had been running low on supplies, but the local population was providing them food and water. The commander of Ft Sumter had inquired with his commanders whether to turn the fort over to the Confederate States, but he was ordered by Lincoln to remain in place and hold the fort.

The Union invasion force was sent under the auspices of a "resupply" effort. However, only one or two of the ships actually had any supplies. The rest were armed ships of the line. Had only the supply ships approached the fort, they would not have been fired on. The firing started when ONLY the armed Union ships approached. The supply ships only came to the fort afterwards. One of the first false flag events the in history of our country! The Confederacy did NOT want nor start the war. Lincoln did.

Prior to the War of Northern Aggression, there was no question whether secession was legal or not. Prior to the war, prevailing legal opinion was that secession was legal. Had the South prevailed in the war - which almost happened on a couple of occasions - there would be no argument whether it was legal or not.

The argument that secession is illegal under the Constitution is a straw man argument. It can only be made because the Union wound up prevailing. Had the Confederacy won - which it almost did on a couple of occasions - as Little_eddie notes, the "law of force" would then say it would certainly be legal. Or put more simply, The winner makes the rules. It would be a moot point as to whether it was Constitutional or not.

And if that were not true, then we would "legally" still be subjects of the Crown, and the US Constitution would also be illegal. However, we have a Declaration of Independence that, upon being written, was an illegal break from the British. All signatories had prices on their heads and were considered in rebellion. That we won the Revolutionary War and signed the Constitution because of the "law of force" is all the evidence needed to counter the argument that secession is not allowable under the Constitution. It is a moot point. If Lincoln's war had turned the other way, today there would be the United States of America AND the Confederate States of America. Not saying that it would be better or worse, and not making that argument either way. But the two countries would exist and things would have happened VERY differently over the last 150 + years.

This is not to support slavery in any way (cause you know someone will make that accusation here). Just pointing out historical fact. Just like the fact (never taught) that the pretty much the ENTIRE slave trade was run out of northern ports with all the slave trading ships coming out of the north (look into the history of why fence posts in the north are adorned with pineapples. Just sayin . . .) Also not taught is that the Confederate Constitution banned the slave trade. In the context of the time, banning the slave trade was the natural first step on the peaceful path to the abolition of the institution of slavery (a good thing). Other nations had already gone down that path, with the next step after banning the slave trade peacefully banning slavery altogether.

The War of Northern Aggression was NOT initially fought to abolish slavery. In fact, one can make a solid argument that one of the main reasons the north invaded the south was from political pressure to continue reaping the profits the Northern Slave traders made from selling slaves in the south, in addition to the profits made in taxes laid on southern exports which was another main reason the south seceded. Not to mention that slavery as an institution in the south was already on its way out anyway due to the increased industrialization and mechanization of farming, but that is another discussion.

Also not taught is that the abolition movement started in the South . . . - nor is the fact that true vile racism was much deeper and more virulent - and violent - in the North. Nor is taught the fact that Lincoln was a true racist (in the true definition of the word) and a bigot. He fully supported and funded the shipping of ALL slaves and black freedmen from Africa back to Africa (Liberia anyone?).
Confederacy was an attempt at dissolution of the Union and the Constitution

BULL. False argument. Yes, it was a dissolution of the Union of the States, as it existed at the time. However, the US Constitution would still have been in full force and effect for the remaining - and future States - unless the remaining states chose to dissolve it, which they did not do when the south seceded.
2018-02-13 07:19:25