AMAZING parallels between Abraham Lincoln and Barak Obama

[PatriotPride]

And they both created a war on America.

Wrong. Lincoln did not "create a war on America". It was set in motion long before he took office. One could argue that the Civil War was a result of the previous President's inability to negotiate with the Southern states.

That being said, I side with the Southern states. State's rights It was our government's ULTIMATE act of hypocrisy to not allow the Southern states to secede.

 

[mrjarrell]

If you haven't read it yet, I suggest Di Lorenzo's "The Real Lincoln". It's a good look at the man and his inconsistencies and what he managed to do to the country.
Amazon.com: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (9780761526469): Thomas DiLorenzo: Books

 

[DragonGunner]

I think the South shooting first an declaring war had something to do with it....all in all Lincoln did do some things that can be disagreed with, but believe he was the one needed at a time when if the states had their way, we probably wouldn't of made it this far, being seperate an going in different directions we never would of gottin to the point we needed to be to fight an win in WWII, Hitler would of ruled the world, destroyed America with atomic bombs because none of the states would of united...an of course slavery would of still been going on as well. With all that was going on I doubt anyone here if they were honest, would want to be in his shoes even for one day.

 

[rambone]

The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

 

[308jake]

The slavery issue was just the justification for the fed to take complete control.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

South Carolina seceded in December 1860 followed quickly by a number of other states. The Civil War did not begin as a result of secession but rather the attack by South Carolina troops on Fort Sumpter, some five months later.

The federal government fully owned the land and facilities at Fort Sumpter, and title to the property was not abrigated because of South Carolina's secession. Yes, Lincoln suspended habeas, but he was empowered to do so by the Constitution. It is a more appropriate description that the southern states seceded, then declared war on the Union.

So, secession by the south occurred as a result of the errosion of state's rights. The Civil War occurred as a result of the attack on a federal post at Fort Sumpter South Carolina.

Not passing judgment one way or the other. Just trying to protect the historical integrity of the events.

 

[Field King]

And here we find ourselves in this great nation, something must have went right? I will take it, we are blessed

 

[rambone]

This great nation has not learned from history and has not honored the constitution.

 

[Compatriot G]

South Carolina seceded in December 1860 followed quickly by a number of other states. The Civil War did not begin as a result of secession but rather the attack by South Carolina troops on Fort Sumpter, some five months later.

The federal government fully owned the land and facilities at Fort Sumpter, and title to the property was not abrigated because of South Carolina's secession. Yes, Lincoln suspended habeas, but he was empowered to do so by the Constitution. It is a more appropriate description that the southern states seceded, then declared war on the Union.

So, secession by the south occurred as a result of the errosion of state's rights. The Civil War occurred as a result of the attack on a federal post at Fort Sumpter South Carolina.

Not passing judgment one way or the other. Just trying to protect the historical integrity of the events.

The issue of Ft. Sumter isn't as simple as you made it out to be. The state of South Carolina had been in negotiations with the U.S. government over Ft. Sumter since their secession. South Carolina offered to pay the U.S. government for Ft. Sumter. Lincoln had agreed to not re-supply the fort and abandon it. Instead, he reneged on his promise and sent relief ships with supplies and troops to reinforce it. When South Carolina found out about this, they were upset that they had been lied to and believed Lincoln had made an aggressive, war-like action towards them. This is why they fired upon the fort. Of course, Lincoln knew his actions would be perceived as aggressive and would probably result in South Carolina firing upon Ft. Sumter. This is exactly what he wanted to happen. The states of the Upper South didn't secede until after Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to march on the state of South Carolina.

If you look at the months of January-April, 1861, you will see Confederate forces seizing forts, arsenals, barracks, etc. all over the South. Why was Ft. Sumter anything special? Even though South Carolina may have "fired" first, Lincoln is the one that caused this action to happen. He forced it to happen because he wanted an excuse to start a war. Most people forget Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican. The Whig party had a platform of centralized banking, centralized government and empire building. It is kind of hard to build an empire when you have states seceding. Especially the states that provided the majority of your revenue. Like most wars, the War To Prevent Southern Independence was basically about money and who controlled it.

 

[printcraft]

Does kind of make one wonder what life would be like today
if there were 2 America's - Not is the political way like there is now,
but the United States and the Confederate States.
I wonder if there would be a border fence?

 

[DHolder]

For the record... I didn't vote for either one!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The issue of Ft. Sumter isn't as simple as you made it out to be. The state of South Carolina had been in negotiations with the U.S. government over Ft. Sumter since their secession. South Carolina offered to pay the U.S. government for Ft. Sumter. Lincoln had agreed to not re-supply the fort and abandon it. Instead, he reneged on his promise and sent relief ships with supplies and troops to reinforce it. When South Carolina found out about this, they were upset that they had been lied to and believed Lincoln had made an aggressive, war-like action towards them. This is why they fired upon the fort. Of course, Lincoln knew his actions would be perceived as aggressive and would probably result in South Carolina firing upon Ft. Sumter. This is exactly what he wanted to happen. The states of the Upper South didn't secede until after Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to march on the state of South Carolina.

If you look at the months of January-April, 1861, you will see Confederate forces seizing forts, arsenals, barracks, etc. all over the South. Why was Ft. Sumter anything special? Even though South Carolina may have "fired" first, Lincoln is the one that caused this action to happen. He forced it to happen because he wanted an excuse to start a war. Most people forget Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican. The Whig party had a platform of centralized banking, centralized government and empire building. It is kind of hard to build an empire when you have states seceding. Especially the states that provided the majority of your revenue. Like most wars, the War To Prevent Southern Independence was basically about money and who controlled it.

I wasn't trying to make it simple. I was trying to cull the irrelevancy and keep it succinct. I don't disagree with you. I was simply pointing out that secession did not directly cause the Civil War. The attempted capture of Fort Sumpter by South Carolina that started the Civil War.

You answered your own question.

Why was Ft. Sumter anything special? Even though South Carolina may have "fired" first...

Lincoln, his motives and tactics are irrelevant. The US was under direct attack. The US responded. Factually that's what happened.

 

[hip shot]

this is the best part

Don’t forget.* November 2 is “Take out the trash day” ! Full M.