Worst President in history ?

[The Redneck]

Who says success has anything to do with wealth? There are plenty of ways to become successful without becoming rich.

Ahh--so other kinds of success are fine; only those that become wealthy, keep people employed, and provide goods and services need to be punished?

Well Redneck plz read the letter of Succession from South Carolina, that is word for word the exact declaration of their sucession from the Union and their reasoning as to why.

I did--that's why I was able to notice that a four references to an issue in a document of several pages does not make the document "about" slavery. Next?

ased on the rules back then slavery could not have been abolished, because the slave owners of the south had soo much power in the government, but the Northern States did their best to abolish slavery,

Which is why the northern states made a fortune off of shipping slaves?

Did i play the race card? I dont remember saying anything about u trying to opress me because im black...

Did I claim you said I was trying to oppress you because you're black? I wasn't even aware of your skin color, and was instead commenting on the fact that you feel a need to call your opponents racists, thus displaying that you don't have a leg to stand on and need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Which, in turn, is referred to as 'playing the race card'. There's a similar term referring to the similar comparing of your opponents to Hitler or the Nazis, referred to as 'playing the Nazi card', or as Reductio ad Hitlerum, which we'll see later on.

I simply was refering to the fact that if the Confederacy did win, based on the way the South was going its obvious slavery would have been legalized everywhere, do u doubt that? And i think that would be a few steps back from
Originally Posted by The Redneck:
...slavery was on its way out..

Considering that I noted that slavery was 'on its way out', it's fairly obvious that I do doubt that if the Confederacy did win slavery would have been legalized everywhere.

First, the Confederacy very obviously had no intentions of conquest. It was the Union which wanted to invade and rob blind its neighboring country, while the Confederate States were defending themselvs--thus the idea that the Confederacy would have imposed slavery 'everywhere' is ridiculous.

Like I noted, slavery was already nearly obsolete by the time of the Secession, and becoming more so, for cultural, religious (the reason that General Robert E. Lee set all of his slaves free long before the war, calling slavery a "moral and political evil"--likewise, the reason that so many southerners who couldn't and likely never would be able to afford even a single slave still fought for their country. This was not something that constricted general grant, for example, who said that if he had the slightest belief that the War of Northern Aggression was to end slavery, then he would have immediately surrendered his commission and given the other side his sword.), and economic reasons. As I also mentioned, nearly every nation in the world had slaves at one point in time, and nearly all of those halted this practice--without the need for a war. Yet somehow the US was unique in this?

Also allow me to illude to another confederate document commonly know as the "Cornstone speech" by Alexander H. Stephens explaing to the people the provisions of the Confederate Constitution, allow me to give u another example:

Again, the part you allude to is a small portion of a large speech. Mr. Stephens notes several issues leading to the Secession. He was indeed a supporter of slavery, but so were many of our Founding Fathers, and this does not abolish their accomplishments (interestingly enough, one of slavery's most avid opponents, Thomas Jefferson (who referred to slavery as an offense of the King of Britain in the Declaration of Independence--the rest of the convention editted that part out), was a southerner.).

As long as u support the Confederacy, while u know their policies toward the millions of Blacks they kept as slaves,

Much like the United States supported the millions of blacks they kept as slaves--for 70 years, compared to the Confederacy's four....

then u sir have no right to speak against rape or theft or anykind of desecration. I'm NOT sorry if i dont feel any pity toward those who would support, a government that allows slavery to exist within its borders. The Union did what it had to do to end the war, and i wouldnt care if they smote the South to ashes and dust for what they were doing to people. Just like i wouldnt have cared if the U.S. dropped 10 nukes on Germany to beat them in WWII. Frankly the world is alot better off without these people.

It is my hope that some day you are able to think past your hatred.

So i guess u wouldnt say the Nazi flag stood for hate and white supremacy, u'd just say it stood for Germany 1930s-1940s.

Ahh, there's the Reductio ad Hitlerum--I told ya that was comin'.

[The Captain]

One of the great misconceptions of America is the belief that the gap between the rich and poor is getting smaller. In fact, the opposite is true, as the middle class of America is disappearing all together and the gap is widening. Giving tax breaks to the richest 5% of the country widens the gap because it allows for them to have added incentives not to pump their money back into the system, which is how the poor can prosper, because the more money they keep or withhold, the larger the tax break they can get under the current systems being put into place.

It's a lose- lose situation for the poor and a win-win for the rich, and since almost all the policies are created or influenced by the rich, it is a policy that is likely to remain for some time.


A big problem, The Redneck, with regard to the Confederate Flag, is that it has been used so many times with regards to the KKK and more than anything else, the fact that they use it as a symbol of their organization, because it represents breaking away from the country, which many KKK believe in, the image of the flag is more or less tarnished, even if that's not what it stands for. A flag is just a symbol, but the images, messages and people who have waved it carry a lot of weight as to how it is viewed or understood, even if these views aren't true.

Take care all.

[lordblazer]

Who says success has anything to do with wealth? There are plenty of ways to become successful without becoming rich.

Ahh--so other kinds of success are fine; only those that become wealthy, keep people employed, and provide goods and services need to be punished?

Well Redneck plz read the letter of Succession from South Carolina, that is word for word the exact declaration of their sucession from the Union and their reasoning as to why.

I did--that's why I was able to notice that a four references to an issue in a document of several pages does not make the document "about" slavery. Next?

ased on the rules back then slavery could not have been abolished, because the slave owners of the south had soo much power in the government, but the Northern States did their best to abolish slavery,

Which is why the northern states made a fortune off of shipping slaves?

Did i play the race card? I dont remember saying anything about u trying to opress me because im black...

Did I claim you said I was trying to oppress you because you're black? I wasn't even aware of your skin color, and was instead commenting on the fact that you feel a need to call your opponents racists, thus displaying that you don't have a leg to stand on and need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Which, in turn, is referred to as 'playing the race card'. There's a similar term referring to the similar comparing of your opponents to Hitler or the Nazis, referred to as 'playing the Nazi card', or as Reductio ad Hitlerum, which we'll see later on.

I simply was refering to the fact that if the Confederacy did win, based on the way the South was going its obvious slavery would have been legalized everywhere, do u doubt that? And i think that would be a few steps back from
Originally Posted by The Redneck:
...slavery was on its way out..

Considering that I noted that slavery was 'on its way out', it's fairly obvious that I do doubt that if the Confederacy did win slavery would have been legalized everywhere.

First, the Confederacy very obviously had no intentions of conquest. It was the Union which wanted to invade and rob blind its neighboring country, while the Confederate States were defending themselvs--thus the idea that the Confederacy would have imposed slavery 'everywhere' is ridiculous.

Like I noted, slavery was already nearly obsolete by the time of the Secession, and becoming more so, for cultural, religious (the reason that General Robert E. Lee set all of his slaves free long before the war, calling slavery a "moral and political evil"--likewise, the reason that so many southerners who couldn't and likely never would be able to afford even a single slave still fought for their country. This was not something that constricted general grant, for example, who said that if he had the slightest belief that the War of Northern Aggression was to end slavery, then he would have immediately surrendered his commission and given the other side his sword.), and economic reasons. As I also mentioned, nearly every nation in the world had slaves at one point in time, and nearly all of those halted this practice--without the need for a war. Yet somehow the US was unique in this?

Also allow me to illude to another confederate document commonly know as the "Cornstone speech" by Alexander H. Stephens explaing to the people the provisions of the Confederate Constitution, allow me to give u another example:

Again, the part you allude to is a small portion of a large speech. Mr. Stephens notes several issues leading to the Secession. He was indeed a supporter of slavery, but so were many of our Founding Fathers, and this does not abolish their accomplishments (interestingly enough, one of slavery's most avid opponents, Thomas Jefferson (who referred to slavery as an offense of the King of Britain in the Declaration of Independence--the rest of the convention editted that part out), was a southerner.).

As long as u support the Confederacy, while u know their policies toward the millions of Blacks they kept as slaves,

Much like the United States supported the millions of blacks they kept as slaves--for 70 years, compared to the Confederacy's four....

then u sir have no right to speak against rape or theft or anykind of desecration. I'm NOT sorry if i dont feel any pity toward those who would support, a government that allows slavery to exist within its borders. The Union did what it had to do to end the war, and i wouldnt care if they smote the South to ashes and dust for what they were doing to people. Just like i wouldnt have cared if the U.S. dropped 10 nukes on Germany to beat them in WWII. Frankly the world is alot better off without these people.

It is my hope that some day you are able to think past your hatred.

So i guess u wouldnt say the Nazi flag stood for hate and white supremacy, u'd just say it stood for Germany 1930s-1940s.

Ahh, there's the Reductio ad Hitlerum--I told ya that was comin'.

I laugh redneck because you love to play with facts in history.All of what they said and what you said is true.The problem is none of you guys have stated that you acknowledged this.Now i said stated.I didn't say you didn't know.Now the whole thing was in fact over slavery.It was over which new territories will become free or slave.The north was highly industrialied and depended upon the south's raw materials in which slave labor was used.Now really only 2% of the population in the south benefitted form slave labor and they wanted to keep it that way.They were in fact the wealthiest southerners.Now the abolishment of slavery was just an end product of the civil war.Please acknowledge that.Because the other 98% of the southern population is what they were crackers.Poor white poeple.REally poor.Really dirty.The term cracker is a slang term that southerners called white poeple from georgia so really it wasn't made into a racial term until the 1950s.Anyway I hope that cleared some things up.On everyones behalf.

[The Redneck]

One of the great misconceptions of America is the belief that the gap between the rich and poor is getting smaller. In fact, the opposite is true, as the middle class of America is disappearing all together and the gap is widening.

That might be possible, but what I've heard is quite different. Where do you get that from?

Giving tax breaks to the richest 5% of the country widens the gap because it allows for them to have added incentives not to pump their money back into the system, which is how the poor can prosper, because the more money they keep or withhold, the larger the tax break they can get under the current systems being put into place.

Actually, the case is the opposite. Higher taxes are a significant bite taken out of an already slim profit margin. Therefore, it's higher taxes that encourage people with money to sit on it rather than to basically invest it for someone else's profit. Investing is already a risky business, and when the stakes are lowered while the odds don't get any better, less people invest.

A big problem, The Redneck, with regard to the Confederate Flag, is that it has been used so many times with regards to the KKK and more than anything else, the fact that they use it as a symbol of their organization,

So has the US Flag. In fact, the KKK flew the US flag until the 1950's, meaning that it's been used longer than the Confederate flag. Likewise the cross, which so far as I'm aware the KKK has claimed since its founding in the 1860's. If someone wishes to let the KKK decide what they should believe, then they shouldn't be surprised when they end up believing some pretty screwed-up things.

Now the whole thing was in fact over slavery.

And again, if 'the whole thing', 'a majority of the thing', or even 'a large part of the thing' was over slavery, then not only would the Secession not have taken place, but most of the soldiers of the Confederacy would never have bothered (Up to and including General E. Lee), and most of the Union wouldn't have bothered to attack (up to and including general grant. If the South hadn't been kicking Lincoln around so bad and he didn't fear the British stepping in to help, then the slaves wouldn't be free whether Lincoln won or not.

[The Captain]

"So has the US Flag. In fact, the KKK flew the US flag until the 1950's, meaning that it's been used longer than the Confederate flag. Likewise the cross, which so far as I'm aware the KKK has claimed since its founding in the 1860's. If someone wishes to let the KKK decide what they should believe, then they shouldn't be surprised when they end up believing some pretty screwed-up things."

One problem is, the Confederate flag is still the flag of choice used. It hasn't been outlawed like the US flag being used has. Part of the problem does deal with stereotyping, as the flag has taken on the role of representing people from the South who are generally stereotyped as Klan when that's not the case. The other problem is that since the flag isn't a nationally recognized flag any longer, the KKK can continue to use it with little protest since it's not viewed as one representing a great majority of people as the US flag is.

"That might be possible, but what I've heard is quite different. Where do you get that from?"

I believe the most recent census showed that the gap has widened as there are now fewer people that make in what is considered the "middle class range" as far is income and much more in the lower bracket. Those in the higher bracket have more money than the previous census, but there are fewer and fewer of them.

"Actually, the case is the opposite. Higher taxes are a significant bite taken out of an already slim profit margin. Therefore, it's higher taxes that encourage people with money to sit on it rather than to basically invest it for someone else's profit. Investing is already a risky business, and when the stakes are lowered while the odds don't get any better, less people invest."

But, if the tax money goes to worthy causes, whilst money gained at a lower tax is not pumped back into the economy but is instead spent on luxury items as MANY, MANY major compaines do (As Enron, Worldcom, Haliburton and various other investigations have shown), who does that help aside from the corrupt CEO's who get the biggest tax breaks?

Take care all.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

Lordblazer save ur time, u cant bring RN out of his own little world of fallacies and support of the Confederacy.

America had every right to take back its land the Confederacy attempted to steal in order to protect their 'pecuilar institution' (note they refer to themselves as slaveholding states, and the North as non-slaveholding states, obviously not concidence) and form their own government, just like Britain would have had everyright to take back the colonies by force, though im glad they werent able to.

Also give up the riddiculous notion that they were going to end slavery in the south had the confederacy won. Ive shown u in the Confederacy's own constitution, that they would be prohibited from passing any laws that would even impair slavery EVER. And prohibited slavery at any one place in a country would have meant impairing slavery there, thus it would be legal everywhere the confederates controled. And if u beileve that they would not have forced the Union to join them had they won, u sir, might lack pretty common sense.

They werent countrymen they were traitors, and treasonists, who turned their back on their country, not seeking escape from religious persecution, gaining representation, or any possibly noble cause, they turned their back on their country so that they wouldnt have to pick their own crops, and to make sure millions of people stayed oppressed.

Which is why the northern states made a fortune off of shipping slaves?

Once again id like to refer to

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

Why else would they abandon their country, what other reason did they have to turn their back on the flag (as it would seem u have, just from what u've posted and ur sig)? Plz i'd like to hear what u beileve their (sarcasm) noble (/sarcasm) fight was about. I know history, i read what they wrote first hand, and now im asking for ur interpretation.

EDIT: There is no need for comments like that. Just present your argument without taking shots at other members. -Murder

[The Redneck]

But, if the tax money goes to worthy causes,

How much tax money goes to 'worthy causes'?

whilst money gained at a lower tax is not pumped back into the economy but is instead spent on luxury items as MANY, MANY major compaines do

First, money spent on luxury items still buys goods and services, and still employs people. Somebody's still got to make the yachts, hot tubs, and champaigne.

More importnatly, the people who earn the money have the right to spend it on luxury items, if they wish. They have the right to give every cent to charity, or invest every penny of it to try to make more money, or leave it all to their cat, or whatever they want to do with it--it's their money, not the government's.

America had every right to take back its land the Confederacy attempted to steal in order to protect their 'pecuilar institution' (note they refer to themselves as slaveholding states, and the North as non-slaveholding states, obviously not concidence) and form their own government,

First, let me repeat the obvious, in that to claim the Confederacy seceeded in order to protect slavery is plainly false.
Second, secessioin was not, in any way, shape, or form, an act of theft. Secession was a right which every state had, and which several northern states almost used, and threatened to use, at earlier points in our nation's history.

Also give up the riddiculous notion that they were going to end slavery in the south had the confederacy won. Ive shown u in the Confederacy's own constitution, that they would be prohibited from passing any laws that would even impair slavery EVER.

Because, of course, nobody will do anything, even look out for their own self-interest, unless the government forces them to do it.....

And if u beileve that they would not have forced the Union to join them had they won, u sir, might lack pretty common sense.

Either that, or I took at look at the evidence; especially since there's not a shred of evidence to support the preposterous notion that had Lincoln's conquest failed the Confederacy would have returned the favor.

They werent countrymen they were traitors, and treasonists, who turned their back on their country,

The Confederates exercised their right to leave a union which did not look out for their interests. This was not an attack against their nation, or an act against their nation at all, and thus the accusation of treason is plainly and blatantly false.

hy else would they abandon their country, what other reason did they have to turn their back on the flag(as it would seem u have, just from what u've posted and ur sig)? Plz i'd like to hear what u beileve their (sarcasm) noble (/sarcasm) fight was about.

If you'd actually read the speech you'd quoted bits and pieces of, you would have seen several reasons, among them that the southern states were being forced to pay for northern infrastructure and then forced through tariffs to support northern industry at their own expense, and the fact that Lincoln's victory without carrying a single southern state indicated quite clearly that the southern states no longer had any real amount of representation in the nation's government. Time to go back and do your research again.

[The Captain]

"How much tax money goes to 'worthy causes'?"

That depends on what you deem worthy causes. If you view strength of miliatary as a worthy cause, then a lot of tax money, especially under the current Administration goes to worthy causes. If however, you view the arts, the environment, social welfare, public works and the like as worthy causes also, then taxes have not been going to them recently.

"First, money spent on luxury items still buys goods and services, and still employs people. Somebody's still got to make the yachts, hot tubs, and champaigne.

More importnatly, the people who earn the money have the right to spend it on luxury items, if they wish. They have the right to give every cent to charity, or invest every penny of it to try to make more money, or leave it all to their cat, or whatever they want to do with it--it's their money, not the government's."

That, in a nutshell is the argument against Reaganomics. If you give the richest of the rich more money through tax breaks, it all relies on them as the individual to reinvest it into the market. However, most follow the logic that you pointed out yourself, in that they spend the money on themselves and the trickle down effect runs dry before anyone on the lower levels actually gets saturated.

Take care all.

[The Redneck]

If however, you view the arts, the environment, social welfare, public works and the like as worthy causes also,

I'd argue that we not only spend plenty but far more than enough money to such causes, but the other fact is that the military requires a government to direct it--whereas the government does not have the duty, nor the right to spend money that belongs to someone else on what it thinks are worthy causes.

That's not even counting the money the government wastes on little specialties like Piss Christ and The Holy Virgin Mary. After seeing public housing and public art, I'd rather pass on the government's other 'worthy causes'.

That, in a nutshell is the argument against Reaganomics. If you give the richest of the rich more money through tax breaks, it all relies on them as the individual to reinvest it into the market. However, most follow the logic that you pointed out yourself, in that they spend the money on themselves and the trickle down effect runs dry before anyone on the lower levels actually gets saturated.

Except that a) history has proven that enough of them do get the money back into the economy, and b) the 'richest of the rich' do not live in a vacuum. Spending money on themselves still means that people get employed, and goods and services are bought.

Most importantly, tax breaks do not 'give the richest of the rich more money'. To steal less money from someone is not to give them anything.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

hy else would they abandon their country, what other reason did they have to turn their back on the flag(as it would seem u have, just from what u've posted and ur sig)? Plz i'd like to hear what u beileve their (sarcasm) noble (/sarcasm) fight was about.

If you'd actually read the speech you'd quoted bits and pieces of, you would have seen several reasons, among them that the southern states were being forced to pay for northern infrastructure and then forced through tariffs to support northern industry at their own expense, and the fact that Lincoln's victory without carrying a single southern state indicated quite clearly that the southern states no longer had any real amount of representation in the nation's government. Time to go back and do your research again.

Really and so i guess u'd say that if all the States that voted for Kerry succeeded from the U.S. then they'd have the right to, just because they didnt vote Bush into power? I just dont think thats right, i have problems with the process, but i still beileve its fair (enough).

No real amount of representation? They still had people in congress didnt they? Therefore they had representation, correct? Infact their representation was falsely inflated by the 3/5's compramise(they werent representing the slaves).

Also i guess u beileve they should have just left the North to collapse, instead of help their fellow countrymen. Im just not cold enough to beileve they would be justified in doing that. And i seriously doubt the tariffs were high enough to be crippling the Souths properous economy. Probably put a dent in the return the slaveowners got back, but why should they care they didnt pay their workers, i mean its not like they gave they health insurance.

They had all they wanted, representation, possibly more representation than my party has (since the repubs. control the House, Senate, White house, and soon if not already the Supreme Court), yet if the democrats broke away to form their own country, not only would they be charged with, convicted of, and possibly sentenced to death for treason, but it would be justifiably so. Because we have representation, and the process was within the rules and regulations of the United States. Now if im unaware of somekind of cheating or voting fraud on the part of Lincoln, then i would have to go back and do my research again, as u have suggested. But i learned about all the reasons u said in U.S. History junior year of highschool. I just cant see how they would be justified or were being oppressed enough to have to seperate and form their own country.

Also would you atleast admit the fear they had of Lincoln freeing the slaves, was the "straw" that broke the camel's back. Because though it wasnt the ONLY reason, im certain it was the final and a MAJOR reason.

[Gnostic Yevon]

America had every right to take back its land the Confederacy attempted to steal in order to protect their 'pecuilar institution' (note they refer to themselves as slaveholding states, and the North as non-slaveholding states, obviously not concidence) and form their own government,

First, let me repeat the obvious, in that to claim the Confederacy seceeded in order to protect slavery is plainly false.
Second, secessioin was not, in any way, shape, or form, an act of theft. Secession was a right which every state had, and which several northern states almost used, and threatened to use, at earlier points in our nation's history.

Actually, the complaint the South had of Lincoln was that he was opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories. And he was under the impression that it would eventually die out.

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. 2

Have we no tendency to the latter condition? 3

Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination—piece of machinery, so to speak—compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider, not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning.
http://www.bartleby.com/251/1001.html

If the succession came as the result of Lincoln's victory, and Lincoln ran on an anti-slavery platform, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the South objected to the anti-slavery platform? Or where they against him because he was tall?

Also give up the riddiculous notion that they were going to end slavery in the south had the confederacy won. Ive shown u in the Confederacy's own constitution, that they would be prohibited from passing any laws that would even impair slavery EVER.

Because, of course, nobody will do anything, even look out for their own self-interest, unless the government forces them to do it.....

It was in their constitution. Constitutions are difficult to change. Before they could even modify slavery laws, they'd have to change the constitution to allow such a law to even be considered. Slavery would have remained for a very long time.

And if u beileve that they would not have forced the Union to join them had they won, u sir, might lack pretty common sense.

Either that, or I took at look at the evidence; especially since there's not a shred of evidence to support the preposterous notion that had Lincoln's conquest failed the Confederacy would have returned the favor.

Well no more than the American Revolution forced Britian to become America. The South wanted separation, not conquest.

They werent countrymen they were traitors, and treasonists, who turned their back on their country,

The Confederates exercised their right to leave a union which did not look out for their interests. This was not an attack against their nation, or an act against their nation at all, and thus the accusation of treason is plainly and blatantly false.

Let me ask you a question -- If I were to declare my home a seperate republic (looking at my username the only name I can come up with is "Republic of Spira"), form a military and a seperate government, make a big flag etc., and shoot at American troops when they come to arrest me, am I a traitor? Yes, I am.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/treason

Treason
Definition:
[n] 1. an act of deliberate betrayal
[n] 2. a crime that undermines the offender's government
[n] 3. disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior

By all three of these, if I was to declare a republic and shoot at American soldiors, I am a traitor. I am betraying my government (by shooting at them), I am undermining the government (First by declaring a republic, and then by shooting at troops), and I am showing disloyalty and subversive behavior by my actions.

hy else would they abandon their country, what other reason did they have to turn their back on the flag(as it would seem u have, just from what u've posted and ur sig)? Plz i'd like to hear what u beileve their (sarcasm) noble (/sarcasm) fight was about.

If you'd actually read the speech you'd quoted bits and pieces of, you would have seen several reasons, among them that the southern states were being forced to pay for northern infrastructure and then forced through tariffs to support northern industry at their own expense, and the fact that Lincoln's victory without carrying a single southern state indicated quite clearly that the southern states no longer had any real amount of representation in the nation's government. Time to go back and do your research again.

His first and main proposition I will give in his own language, scripture quotations and all [laughter]; I give his exact language: “‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it to cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” 13

In other words, Mr. Lincoln asserts, as a fundamental principle of this government, that there must be uniformity in the local laws and domestic institutions of each and all the States of the Union; and he therefore invites all the non-slaveholding States to band together, organize as one body, and make war upon slavery in Kentucky, upon slavery in Virginia, upon the Carolinas, upon slavery in all of the slaveholding States in this Union, and to persevere in that war until it shall be exterminated. He then notifies the slaveholding States to stand together as a unit and make an aggressive war upon the Free States of this Union with a view of establishing slavery in them all; of forcing it upon Illinois, of forcing it upon New York, upon New England, and upon every other Free State, and that they shall keep up the warfare until it has been formally established in them all. In other words, Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly and clearly a war of sections, a war of the North against the South, of the Free States against the Slave States,—a war of extermination,—to be continued relentlessly until the one or the other shall be subdued, and all the States shall either become free or become slave.

http://www.bartleby.com/251/1002.html

Slavery was a big part of the presidential election just previous to the seccession. The fear expressed here by Sen. Steven Douglas is that the North intended to forcibly end slavery in their territories and that only after such a war could the slavery issue be settled. I notice that in this entire speech, Douglas mentions no other issue that the North was forcing on them. Only slavery.

[The Redneck]

EDIT: There is no need for comments like that. Just present your argument without taking shots at other members. -Murder

Sure wish I'd gotten that once or twice instead of a two-week ban...

Really and so i guess u'd say that if all the States that voted for Kerry succeeded from the U.S. then they'd have the right to, just because they didnt vote Bush into power? I just dont think thats right, i have problems with the process, but i still beileve its fair (enough).

I'd say that one issue alone would be pretty flimsy reason for such an important decision, but yes, they have that right. In fact, shortly before the War of Northern Aggression there was a movement to seceed from the south. In fact, some people are speaking of it even now.

Also i guess u beileve they should have just left the North to collapse, instead of help their fellow countrymen. Im just not cold enough to beileve they would be justified in doing that.

But you're cold enough to advocate stealing Southern money to support Northern industry? My view of compassion doesn't involve spending someone else's money on worthy causes--much less using it to do what someone should be doing for themselves.

And i seriously doubt the tariffs were high enough to be crippling the Souths properous economy. Probably put a dent in the return the slaveowners got back, but why should they care they didnt pay their workers, i mean its not like they gave they health insurance.

Considering that 98% of southerners didn't own slaves, and that 98% still had to buy manufactured goods, the idea that only slaveowners suffered just isn't correct.

They had all they wanted, representation, possibly more representation than my party has (since the repubs. control the House, Senate, White house, and soon if not already the Supreme Court),

And I'm sure you just oozed with sympathy when the Democratic party held a stranglehold on Congress for more than 40 years.....

yet if the democrats broke away to form their own country, not only would they be charged with, convicted of, and possibly sentenced to death for treason, but it would be justifiably so.

Again, false. It would be rather flimsy for, say, the Northeast to seceed over an election, but it's certainly been considered--including by Lincoln himself. Moreover, in 1788 several states did secede, and formed a union independent of New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Notably, the Union refused to try any Confederates for treason for the very reason that this would have called the constitutionality of any such charge into question.
Said Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massechussettes in 1899, "When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say there was no man in this country, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side to George Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded our system of Government, when first adopted, as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised. (Henry Cabot Lodge, Daniel Webster, Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1899, p. 176)"

Moreover, Amendment 10 to the Constitution (the last of the first 10 Amendments known as the "Bill of Rights,"), states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Secession is indeed a power not prohibited by the Constitution to the states (in fact, the Constitution declines to mention it at all, and considering that it had already happened once, it's surely a stretch of logic to assume this was an oversight), and thus according to the Constitution is a right reserved to the states.

Also would you atleast admit the fear they had of Lincoln freeing the slaves, was the "straw" that broke the camel's back.

-There was no indication that Congress would pass any law ending slavery. If they had attempted it, enough slave-holding states--both Confederate and non-Confederate--had representatives that they would have been able to shut it down.
-Lincoln had more than once assured that he had no intention of freeing the slaves--and indeed wouldn't have, if he hadn't feared British support of the Confederacy, which is why he didn't make any effort to free slaves in Maryland, Kentucky, Missourri, or Delaware, where he actually had the power to--As the London Spectator noted in 1863, Lincoln "...liberated the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them....The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.". Had such a law passed, there's no reason to believe it would have been signed.
-In 1857, the Supreme Court passed the Dred Scott decision, which legally held that people had a right to own slaves. If a law ending slavery had passed both the legislative and executive branches, the courts would have reversed it.
--Therefore, if Secession had been over the matter of slavery, it would have been completely unnecessary.
-In March of 1865, the Confederate States authorized the emancipation and recruitment of 300,000 slaves. Had they been fighting to keep slavery, freeing their own slaves would be at best counterproductive to this end--as James Gardner, editor-in-chief of the Augusta, Georgia Daily Constitutionalist, said, "As between reunion...[and] submission to the Yankee and the entire obliteration of negro slavery; individually we should say slavery must go."
-As a last-ditch effort to stave off Secession, Lincoln advanced an amendment to the Constitution, the Corwin Amendment, that would have protected slavery forever--it passed the House by 133-65 and the Senate by 24-12, even after seven states had seceded and vacated their seats, and eventually died in ratification of several states as wartime concerns became more pressing. Surely, a secession to save slavery would have been halted in its tracks by such a guarantee.
-And secession produced a national border that slaves could easily slip across. Since the Confederate States were no longer part of the Union, the Union now had no obligation to return escaped slaves (as they did before Secession), and thus Secession itself was a death-knell for slavery.

Actually, the complaint the South had of Lincoln was that he was opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories.

There were several complaints regarding both Lincoln and the Republican party--one of the most prominent was a general and rather virulent hostility to the South, evidenced in inflammatory (and sometimes libellous) speeches and campaign documents with such captions as "The Stupid Masses of the South".

The biggest issue was the matter of tariffs, wherein the South paid about 83% of the nation's taxes and recieved significantly less than half of the proceeds. As the Georgia declaration of secession states:
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 [about $8.5 million in today?s dollars] is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually [about $34 million today] for the support of these objects. These interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually [about $119 million today], throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors.

Some of these tariffs had almost caused Secession 30 years earlier, over the "Tariff of Abominations". This also explains why the war was necessary, from Lincoln's point of view. The Secession cost the Union a huge amount of revenue, while reducing their expenses by a much smaller amount.

And he was under the impression that it would eventually die out.

This impression was correct. Not only were cultural and religious influence bearing against it (this is what convinced Robert E. Lee to manumit (set free) all of his slaves long before the Secession), but the practice was plain and simply becoming obsolete. Advancements both in farming and in farming implements meant that for a plantation to have slaves would be a huge increase in cost over their neighbors--meaning that if they didn't stop the practice of slavery, their neighbors would render them obsolete. It was the same advancement of the Industrial Revolution that had made slavery obsolete in the North.

It was in their constitution. Constitutions are difficult to change. Before they could even modify slavery laws, they'd have to change the constitution to allow such a law to even be considered.

First, the government not passing a law doesn't mean no one will do it. Slavery was on its way to becoming obsolete, and if the government couldn't pass a law outlawing slavery, it certainly couldn't pass one forcing slaveowners to keep their slaves.

More importantly, the Confederacy's constitution prevented the Confederate government from passing such a law. By the very nature of a Confederacy, each state still had the right to do so--and eventually, would have.

Well, the United States changed its ways it now stands for freedom of all people, as opposed to ur flag which represents hatred, racism, and slavery.

While I've already noted (and quoted this comment earlier) that the Confederate flag doesn't represent "hatred, racism and slavery" any more than the US flag does, let me ask a question.... What about African flags?

I've seen plenty of them, hanging from mirrors or put on liscense plates (for those of y'all confused at this point, a lot of southern states only demand one liscense plate, so a lot of people put something else--such as a rebel flag, or an African flag--in place of the front liscense-plate)--a green, yellow, and black flag that represents Africa. Many black people display this because they are proud of their heritage--and this is not only allowable, but very cool. But if, by your logic, a flag under which slavery took place represents slavery... then how much more so a flag under which is still takes place? Slavery is, in fact, the only African tradition which the United States has imported, has been part of its history for thousands of years; and the slaves brought to America were captured by Africans. You say that if the South had won you'd probably be a slave today? You'd be more likely to be a slave today if your ancestors had stayed in Africa.

[Gnostic Yevon]

Quote:
Well, the United States changed its ways it now stands for freedom of all people, as opposed to ur flag which represents hatred, racism, and slavery.

While I've already noted (and quoted this comment earlier) that the Confederate flag doesn't represent "hatred, racism and slavery" any more than the US flag does, let me ask a question.... What about African flags?

I've seen plenty of them, hanging from mirrors or put on liscense plates (for those of y'all confused at this point, a lot of southern states only demand one liscense plate, so a lot of people put something else--such as a rebel flag, or an African flag--in place of the front liscense-plate)--a green, yellow, and black flag that represents Africa. Many black people display this because they are proud of their heritage--and this is not only allowable, but very cool. But if, by your logic, a flag under which slavery took place represents slavery... then how much more so a flag under which is still takes place? Slavery is, in fact, the only African tradition which the United States has imported, has been part of its history for thousands of years; and the slaves brought to America were captured by Africans. You say that if the South had won you'd probably be a slave today? You'd be more likely to be a slave today if your ancestors had stayed in Africa.

Yes, but no racist group uses the African Flag to promote its version of racial superiority. The Nazi flag and the Battle Flag of the Confederacy (as I understand it, the "stars and bars" was the battle flag put in place because the Confederate soldiors were getting confused and leaving with Union units) are both currently used by racist groups as a symbol of their goals. The KKK uses the "stars and bars" flag all the time. The neo-Nazis use the swastika flag the same way. If neither flag was used by these groups right now, then they wouldn't be considered racist. They'd be historical flags hanging in museums. Really the political flag of the confederacy has no racist connotation at all because no racist group has ever organized itself under the political flag of the CSA, just the battle flag.

[The Redneck]

Yes, but no racist group uses the African Flag to promote its version of racial superiority.

Simple odds say otherwise--the country isn't exactly flooded with them, but there are quite a few black racist groups out there, and the flag's right there to use. That doesn't make that flag racist, but it does make it likely someone will use it as a symbol.

The Nazi flag and the Battle Flag of the Confederacy (as I understand it, the "stars and bars" was the battle flag put in place because the Confederate soldiors were getting confused and leaving with Union units) are both currently used by racist groups as a symbol of their goals.

So are many other flags--including the US flag, which even the KKK used during the first 90 years or so of its existence, and the cross, which the bastards still use. Does this make the cross a racist symbol?

And actually, the swastika is a good-luck symbol. When I was in Korea, it was fairly common to see someone flying a white flag with a red swastika above his house. Didn't have anything to do with the Nazis; it just meant the guy was a buddhist.

[Gnostic Yevon]

Yes, but no racist group uses the African Flag to promote its version of racial superiority.

Simple odds say otherwise--the country isn't exactly flooded with them, but there are quite a few black racist groups out there, and the flag's right there to use. That doesn't make that flag racist, but it does make it likely someone will use it as a symbol.

Can you name an organization that actually uses the African flag as a racist symbol?

The Nazi flag and the Battle Flag of the Confederacy (as I understand it, the "stars and bars" was the battle flag put in place because the Confederate soldiors were getting confused and leaving with Union units) are both currently used by racist groups as a symbol of their goals.

So are many other flags--including the US flag, which even the KKK used during the first 90 years or so of its existence, and the cross, which the bastards still use. Does this make the cross a racist symbol?

The cross is still the symbol of Christianity, and the KKK generally used flaming crosses. That's a little bit different. No church that I'm aware of burns crosses, so the symbol is different. I don't think the average person is looking at a cross and wondering if that building belongs to the KKK, mostly because 9/10 times you see a cross, it is on a church.

As to the US Flag, the flag is still the symbol of an existing nation. The Confederate flags other than being used by KKK and other such groups weren't being used as a symbol of anything else. Since the only time the average person saw the stars and bars was at KKK type meetings, it isn't hard to see how someone could see that flag and wonder if the person was racist.

And actually, the swastika is a good-luck symbol. When I was in Korea, it was fairly common to see someone flying a white flag with a red swastika above his house. Didn't have anything to do with the Nazis; it just meant the guy was a buddhist.

First of all, the Nazi Flag was red with a white circle and a black swastika, that isn't the same flag at all. Another thing is that the swastika in Asia is exactly backwards of the European one. (One is clockwise and the other is anti-clockwise, but I can't remember which one was which) So the Korean swastika isn't even the same swastika even if the flags were similar.