TheLiberalForums.com Logo.
Click here to view our online shop!

    SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The time now is Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:09 pm
TheLiberalForums.com Forum Index
View unanswered posts

Liberal of the Month
Barack Obama
Barack Obama

Sponsors

Submitted Articles
What is a Liberal?
How Liberalism evolved?

 Search 


RomeForums.com Logo

HippieForums.com Logo

TheXboxBoys.com Logo

Sedo - Buy and Sell Domain Names and Websites etracker® web controlling instead of log file analysis
Why Did Abe Lincoln Start The Civil War???
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TheLiberalForums.com Forum Index -> History
Author Message
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 12:13 pm    Post subject: Why Did Abe Lincoln Start The Civil War??? Reply with quote

Anybody here know the answer to this question???

Anybody here aware that the Civil War was singularly responsible for more american combat deaths than all the other american combat deaths combined in all the other wars we have fought???

Why did Lincoln invade the South??? Lincoln promised to never make war against the South during the 1860 presidential campaign...that's the only reason Lincoln(a nobody in the political arena) got himself elected president!!!

The promise NOT to make war against the South was Lincoln's ONLY ticket to the White House. It's the only reason the Republican Party backed him!!! He had to swear to the Republican leadership that he would not go to war with the South otherwise the Republican party would have nothing to do with him!!!

After winning the presidency, Lincoln turns around and invades the South causing almost 1 million war deaths...Why????
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

O.K...since no one knows why Abe Lincoln invaded the South, maybe someone could tell us why the South seceded just days after Lincoln won the 1860 election?

Here...let me provide a few clues!

The republican party(Lincoln's party) was made up of powerful northern capitalists, northern shippers & northern indsutrialists. This political party made it no secret that they intended to tax the hell out of the South if they won the 1860 election. WHY...to finance all of the north's infrastructure & rail systems and ports facilities so these repbulican industrialists could build their empires.

How could the North get away with taxing only the South. First, there were no incomes taxes back in 1860 so the only way the U.S. Gov't could fill its coffers with tax monies was to levy tarriffs(taxes) on imported goods. Who were the major importers of goods from England, France, Spain, etc, THE SOUTH. As a matter of fact, four southern states alone accounted for more than 50% of all taxes paid to the northern U.S. Gov't.

Beginning to get the picture!!! The North looked upon the South as its personal cash-cow to be gutted monetarily to finance northern industrial expansion.
Add to this fact, that Lincoln and the republican party platform called for increasing these import taxes from 18.84% to 40% if they won the 1860 election and you can see why the South said screw you...we're out of here.
The South would have been bankrupted if they submitted to such a taxing scheme by Lincoln and the Republican party.

So...does anyone have any idea why the South seceded????
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

O.K...since no one wants to discuss the real reason(above) why the South seceded, let's see if I can drive the point home this way. If the federal Gov't tacked on an 18.84% import tax on ALL imported goods(cars, trucks, electronics, foods, etc) YOU purchase and this tax would only impact the region of the U.S. where YOU lived (South), would you pay this tax????

If a presidential candidate and his/her political party promised that, if elected, they would raise the above tax from 18.84% to 40% on all the imported goods YOU purchase in your region(South) to build roads, railroads, ports, etc in another region(North) of this country where such a tax is not operative, would you pay it???

This is exactly what the South faced if Lincoln and the Republican party won the 1860 election, which they did. Lincoln and the republicans made no secret that they intended to use the power of the federal gov't to convert the prosperous southern states into nothing but poor agricultural colonies of the North by taxing the South to death.

So, on Dec 20, 1860, South Carolina was the first state to say goodbye and they were later followed by 11 other southern states.

This secession action put Abe Lincoln in a world of sh*t!!! With the South gone there would be no way the North could finance(taxes) all their industrial projects & expansion since the South had been paying the majority of taxes to the North. What was worse for Lincoln, politcally, was that all the wealthy industrialists who backed his candidacy for president were now goin to go bankrupt or face financial ruin which meant the end of Lincoln's political career and which would make him an immediate lame-duck president because he would lose the backing of his party.

Lincoln was beyond paraniod over how his few month old presidency had been turned into political death for himself & his presidency. Lincoln cared nothing about slavery, but he did care about all of the northern industrialists & capitalists who had made him president and who were depending on him to deliver large tax increases from the South.

So, he went looking for an excuse to make war since he believed that the war would last no more than 90 days and he believed that it would take just one or two northern victories to scare the South back into the union. Big mistake!! And Lincoln was warned repeatedly by his own party and members of his military NOT to make war on the South.

So, the first thing Lincoln did to announce his intention of making war was to trash the Consitution. This is what all good liberals do...trash the constitution for their convenience!!! In this case, Lincoln added language that had been deliberately left out of our Constitution. What language??? It's called the "perpetual clause." What was the "perpetual clause"??? Before the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, we joined as a nation legally by a document called the Articles of Confederation. In the Articles of Confederation was placed the "perpetual clause' which said that a state can only secede if all states secede at the same time.

When the U.S. Constitution was written and approved, the "perpetual clause" from the old Articles of Confedration was deliberately left out thus allowing any state to secede without having to have all the other states secede as well. Hence, South Carolina or any other state could(and did) legally secede.

Well...good ole lying Abe went before congress claiming that the "perpetual clause," which was deliberately left out of our Constitution, all of the sudden now applies to the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, any state seceding is breaking the law and violating the Constitution. Welcome to lib dictatorship! This blatant lie is but one of many of Lincoln's power-drunk bastardizations of our Constitution. There's only two organizations in the world that I know of where if you belong and then want to leave you'll
be killed...Lincoln's 1860 America and the mafia!!!

Lincoln set the course for bloodiest war in our history out of pure fear for his political career & his presidency. Virtually everyone on both sides(north/south) knew and understood that the South was going to eventually return to the union, and that's why the majority of his own party warned Lincoln NOT to go to war with the South over secession. There was no legitimate reason to get 900,000 americans killed and devastate the economies of 13 states. Lincoln WAS NOT the saver of the union...he saved NOTHING...


Last edited by deportliberals on Wed May 09, 2007 7:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BTW...if you don't know any of the accurate, historical facts I've listed above about Lincoln, his starting the war and the south's REAL reason for secession and you're a public high school graduate, then know that you were screwed by the politically correct public school system which has been turning out illiterates by the millions for the last 40 years while their unions insist that taxpayers fork over mo money to pay for increased salaries and pensions.

If you're a public/private college grads and you don't know any of the above history, you need to ask for your money back because you essentially paid some SOB to lie to you directly or by omission.

Paying $billions in taxes to our educational system to propagandize our children in leftist-hate-america poltics needs to be stopped. Like Reagan said, "it's time to defund the left in this country."

Deport liberals
Save America
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now that you know WHY the South seceded from the union...TAXES/IMPORTS...you must also keep in mind that the so-called union had been in effect for only 71 years at the time Lincoln was elected president.

It was just 71 years earlier that the U.S. Constitution had been ratified. There were fierce arguments over adopting and ratifying the U.S. Constitution. Most of the dissent centered on the fear of creating a large centralized gov't that would have too much power.

There were 55 delegates who attended the signing of the U.S. Constitution. 39 of them signed...16 rejected the constitution. The members agreed that at least nine of the 13 states must ratify the constitution before it could take effect. It took two years before a total of nine states finally agreed to adopt the U.S. Constitution.

Hence, the U.S. constitution was put into effect with 16 delegates rejecting it and four states refusing to adopt it. As you can clearly see, the U.S. was not a stable union by 1860 and the last thing the country needed was a leadership in the North that was openly antagonistic toward any group of states. The election of Abe Lincoln, along his anti-south republican-controlled congress, was a prescription for disaster. The South was not going to submit themselves to such a hostile government and thus exercised their right to secede and govern themselves as a separate democracy. You see, the South did NOT need the North. The North desparately needed the South and the taxes the South the provided to the North.

Of the three wars fought on our soil...(Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and the Civil War)...two of the worst wars and most costly wars(Revolutionary & Civil) were fought over big governemnt abuses and taxation. King George III oppressed us with big gov't abuses & increasing taxation which triggered the American Revolutionary War, and Abe Lincoln with his republican industrialists threatened massive tax increases on Southern imports which caused the South to leave the union and prompted Lincoln to invade the South.

Today we have a massive out-of-control federal gov't that the liberal establishment has grown over the last 45 years because they controlled congress and most of the spending during that time. This liberal Goliath now takes almost three $trillion dollars out of the U.S. economy to run itself and 66 cents of every dollar it takes in is spent on social welfare bullsh*t programs. This is precisely the kind of government abuse that directly caused the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.

Keep your powder dry!


Last edited by deportliberals on Thu May 24, 2007 4:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Chemist
Congressional Page


Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can tell you don't really lose debates do you? You don't win of course...but you don't lose either.

Perhaps you wouldn't sound so...insane...if you considered the possibility that not every single liberal ever to breathe on this planet was a tax raising sissy.
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2007 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chemist wrote:
I can tell you don't really lose debates do you? You don't win of course...but you don't lose either.


Oh...I very much do win my debates. I arm myself with facts, unlike the liberals I debate. Winning debates with liberals has almost become second-nature for me.

Quote:

Perhaps you wouldn't sound so...insane...if you considered the possibility that not every single liberal ever to breathe on this planet was a tax raising sissy.


Yes...I probably do sound insane when ramming facts & truth up the butt of modern liberalism. Today's liberalism is a world where facts and truth no longer exist...rumor, ineundo and just plain ole made up sh*t is the life blood of today's liberalism. So, when someone like me or some other conservative fractures the fake world of liberalism with hardcore facts their only defense is to call us insane...just like Joe Stalin, Nikita Kruschev and all the other communist butchers did when they sent folks like me to communist insane asylums because we would dare publicly expose the lies, falsehoods, victims & failures of communism.

See...you share an historic bond with the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc...all believed that anyone who disagreed with communism(liberalism in your case) had to be insane. As you have so aptly demonstrated here today's liberals, likewise, look upon those who dare disagree with them to be insane.

Anymore questions???
Back to top
phil
Mayor


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 174
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

those is fighting words!
Back to top
openly moderate
Congressional Page


Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 16
Location: Scenic Sunny Southern California

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am forwarding this to my kids. They work at that socialist bastion, the Univ of CA at Berkeley.
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

openly moderate wrote:
I am forwarding this to my kids. They work at that socialist bastion, the Univ of CA at Berkeley.


Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...well...unfortunately....it's axiomatic that "thruth" and Berkely don't mix. Who knows...maybe some of these truths will set a few souls free out there.Smile)
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here...let me give you some more accurate historical data to show just how much of a warmongering bastard Abe Lincoln truly was!!!

To keep this in context, let me first revisit the fact that Abe Lincoln was only a political lighweight during the 1860 election that made him president. His only claim to political fame was a single two year term as a congressman that occured 11 years before the 1860 election.

The two republican front-runners, Lincoln's opponents, were major political powerhouses with massive financial backing from northern industrialists. Salmon P. Chase and William H. Seward had both been governors and senators and were well known with major backers, unlike Lincoln. Everyone thought that one of those two men would be the republican presidential candidate, not Lincoln WHO???

So...how the hell did a nobody like Lincoln beat these powerful men? He lied!! What lie could possibly defeat such powerful opponents and win Lincoln the presidency? In backroom deals, Lincoln promised the backers of Salmon Chase and William Seward that if they supported him he would never wage war on the south. You see, although Chase and Seward had all the backing, money & experience both men were viewed by their backers as a tad bit war happy. Lincoln took advantage of this fear by promising the backers of Chase and Seward that he would not go to war with the South if elected president.

Ater the election ...with the South gone(seceded)...and no more taxes flowing into the Northern coffers, Lincoln needed a war to save his political ass. So, Lincoln picked a hot spot in the South to start his war. At Ft Sumter, South Carolina, was a small garrison of northern troops...about 86 men. Lincoln knew that any attempt to resupply this garrison would start a shooting war. South Carolina governor Pickens correctly suspected that Lincoln would use Ft Sumter to start a war so governor Pickens allowed these northern troops to resupply their garrison once a week by giving them free passage to the city of Charleston to get supplies. This really pissed off Lincoln because it took away his excuse to send re-supply ships into Charleston Harbour...an act that would definitely start a shooting war.

Even Major Anderson, northern commander at Ft Sumter, feared that Lincoln would use Ft Sumter as a pretex to start war and he wrote letters to friends and associates expressing this fear about Lincoln.

Even southern president Jefferson Davis knew that Lincoln would probably use Ft Sumter as a flashpoint to ignite a war. So...Jefferson Davis sent peace commissioners to Washington DC to see Lincoln in an effort to head off war. What did Lincoln do when the peace commissioners arrived?? He refused to see them.

So....Lincoln got his goddamn war and saved his political ass. First shots of the war were fired at Ft Sumter...900,000 dead men later Lincoln won his war...way to go Lincoln!
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course, today's lying history paints Abe Lincoln as a kindly, soft-spoken man who stopped slavery and saved the union.

Well...someone needs to ask the historians why Abe Lincoln represented (in court) slaver owners who sued to get their property(slaves) returned to their ownership. Lincoln never represented the slaves! Maybe some historian can explain why Abe Lincoln fought for legislation to prevent blacks from immigrating to Abe's home state, Illinois... Abe was a congressman when he did that. Maybe some historian can explain Abe's letters declaring that blacks can never be the equal to whites.
Maybe some historian would like to explain why Abe Lincoln never mentioned a goddamn thing about slavery until 1854 when he joined the newly formed Republican Party.

In the meantime, let me list some of the kind & gentle things Abe Lincoln did TO this country:

(1) Invaded the South without congress' approval.
(2) Blockaded Southern ports without congressional approval or a declaration of war from congress. Again, this points out how the north really didn't want to go to war with the South...but Abe was hell bent to save his political career.
(3) Illegally suspended the constitutional protection of "habeas corpus."
(4) Imprisioned thousands of northern anti-war protestors and hundreds of northern newspaper editors without trials. So much for Abe's dedication to free speech. Again...this shows how the north was dragged into the war by Abe.
(5) Censored all newspapers and telegraph communications. Abe really didn't like free speech at all.
(6) Created three new states without the approval or consent of the people of those states. Why...to inflate the electorial vote in his favor.
(7) Actually deported Ohio congressman Clement L. Vallandigham for daring to oppose his domestic policies.
(Cool Committed major private property confiscation on a massive scale.

Lincoln was NOT some kindly soft-spoken soul. He was utterly vicious and very vendictive and even his generals were taken in surprise by some of his cruelty. Go read what General Sherman wrote about Lincoln when he came to DC to report to Lincoln about his scortched-earth campaign through Georgia. Sherman wrote that he was utterly shocked to watch Lincoln laugh repeatedly when he told Lincoln about the punishing tactics used to cause major civilian casualties during the Georgia campaign. For a man like Sherman, who was cold as steel, to be take aback enough to write about this incident speaks volumes about Lincoln's hidden personality.

Wonder why the historians/professors don't teach these truths...maybe they don't want to see Lincoln's face removed from Mt Rushmore...it's called liberal politics. To admit that the South was right & perfectly legal in what it did is something the libs just can't let happen.
Back to top
James Rottnek
Mayor's Aide


Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:54 am    Post subject: The real reason Reply with quote

To reply to an earlier statement from you I am going to explain the actual reason as to why the Souuth started to secede. The true reason is because they were under the mistaken belief that Lincoln was an active abolitionist. Lincoln was not. They thought, because of the priorly mentioned mistake, that Lincoln would free all slaves. He did not do this. The Emancipation Proclomation did not free the slaves as is often beleived. It allegedly freed a few thousand in the CSA. However, they were not free as the CSA was not under the jurisdiction of the USA (and should have been recognised) and no Border State had to give it up.
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:40 am    Post subject: Re: The real reason Reply with quote

James Rottnek wrote:
To reply to an earlier statement from you I am going to explain the actual reason as to why the Souuth started to secede. The true reason is because they were under the mistaken belief that Lincoln was an active abolitionist. Lincoln was not. They thought, because of the priorly mentioned mistake, that Lincoln would free all slaves. He did not do this. The Emancipation Proclomation did not free the slaves as is often beleived. It allegedly freed a few thousand in the CSA. However, they were not free as the CSA was not under the jurisdiction of the USA (and should have been recognised) and no Border State had to give it up.


Please do yourself a favor and do not comment on history. Slavery(abolition of slavery) was NOT the reason the south seceded. Unless you've read and understand the 'Articles of Confederation" and the debates surrounding the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the 71 Federalists Papers you have no clue what the 1860 mindset was and no clue about the major cultural/economic differences at play at that time. We were two distinct nations living as one. The North and South were two different worlds. Slavery was but as small part of that equation.

If you want accurate history then re-read my posts above and go check the appropriate sources.
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2007 12:12 pm    Post subject: Re: The real reason Reply with quote

James Rottnek wrote:
They thought, because of the priorly mentioned mistake, that Lincoln would free all slaves. He did not do this. The Emancipation Proclomation did not free the slaves as is often beleived. It allegedly freed a few thousand in the CSA. However, they were not free as the CSA was not under the jurisdiction of the USA (and should have been recognised) and no Border State had to give it up.


First during the year(1860) that Lincoln was elected president there was plenty of slavery going on in the northern states. Three states that come to mind are New York, Delaware and Maryland. Also, there were BLACK slaveholders in the south in both Louisana and Charleston, South Carolina and elsewhere...as in black owning blacks for profits!!!!

Both the North and the South had legal slave trading going on before and during the civil war. U.S. slave trade was but a microcosism of the world slave trade industry. The entire frickin' world was doing it. You'd think from listening to idiot, uninformed liberals that the U.S. was the only nation practicing slavery. Hell, Britian didn't officially abolish slavery until the 1830s, just some 30 years before we did.

My point is that the war between the states was NOT fought over the issue of slavery. It was fought over the issues of high, punitive taxes on imports and states rights(amendment 10) to determine their own course as opposed to being oppressed again by a giant-out-of-control gov't. It had been just some 72 years earlier that we fought a bloody war to rid ourselves of the punitive taxes and oppresion from a large British gov't runned by King George III. The last thing many states wanted(particularly southern states) was another large tax-and-spend gov't that oppressed them culturally and ecomically.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TheLiberalForums.com Forum Index -> History All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Sponsors
Political News
RSS to JavaScript


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group