Anyone else here hate Abraham Lincoln?

[Younger Longest]

As a teacher and writer, and true student of history, I am appalled at the number of people who worship Abraham Lincoln. He was clearly an unpopular president from the beginning and won with less than 40% of the vote. I also always laugh when people try and argue that he ended slavery. If you carefully read the text of the emancipation proclamation, he clearly states it was a "WAR MEASURE" and that it did not apply to parts of VA, TN, and LA where the Union had occupied, nor did it apply to the border states. It also gave the south 100 days to return to the Union and keep its slaves. He explicitly said himself that he would have kept slavery if it could keep the Union together.

The true cause of the war was tariffs. Southerners had to pay outrageous taxes on imports, since the early 1800s, just to "protect" and enrich northern manufacturers. All of the southern states seceded peacefully, and no shots were fired until Lincoln decided to invade Ft. Sumter. Even those shots were forewarned in a series of letters exchanged between the two commanding officers. Many of the states that were last to secede did so because Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade Virginia.

He quickly silenced anyone who opposed him, jailing representatives in Delaware and Maryland who also wanted their states to secede. He also shut down newspapers that wrote negative things about him and bought German language newspapers in the north to try and sway public opinion anyway he could.

He would not acknowledge the south as an independent nation, yet openly used tactics that were internationally recognized as official acts of war between nations (blockade, destruction of public property, and yes even murder of civilians). The fact is that he was always trying to use his slick lawyer rhetoric to claim that secession was treason, when in fact it is part of the American tradition. For example the Hartford convention during the War of 1812, where New England states threatened secession because their shipping industry was disrupted.

What the south did in 1860 was no different than what our founding fathers did in 1776. NO DIFFERENT. The same people that declare the south committed treason are also saying that they support a bigger and more unlimited government. Basically over 650,000+ men died because Abraham Lincoln had a certain distorted view of the constitution...

[Tennessee_Volunteer]

If you've any love for the South, I imagine you have to have some contempt in regards to Lincoln. He, just as Sherman or Grant, holds responsibility for the destruction of the Old South and the crushing of any hopes for Southern independence.

But, hate? No, not really. His job was to preserve the Union and he did, if at the cost of 600K+ lives. I can't imagine anyone doing much better while in his position, if allowing secession was absolutely not a viable option. We could sit here all day and argue the particulars of whether he was a tyrant, murderer, or whatnot. In the end, he was just a man, not a devil.

I'd much rather dwell on the great deeds of my ancestors and other Southerners than seethe with rage towards Lincoln.

[Bravescot]

:O is it the return of Vermont I see?

[thomas aagaard]

Lost cause BS. and no evidence of any of your myths.
I also always laugh when people try and argue that he ended slavery.
The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery, not the EP... something that should be common knowledge.

"Southerners had to pay outrageous taxes on imports, since the early 1800s, "
Tariffs rates changed a lot over the 60 years since 1800. By 1857 the tariff rate was very low, both compared to earlier and to other countries.
In 1848 it changed from 32% to 25%, then after the election in 1856 it changed to 17%. And why was it lowered? because the south controlled congress.
(http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html)

Also in the fiscal year 1858 the federal government had a deficit of 27,529,904$ and with about 90% of all income being from the tariffs this was sort of a problem.
Also everyone paid the same rate.

If the south paid an unfair part of this, the obvipoulsy most of the money was collected in the south?

Actually no.
"New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million. "
[Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, “Trade Figures by Port in 1860” and “Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)”]

"All of the southern states seceded peacefully, and no shots were fired until Lincoln decided to invade Ft. Sumter. "
Below is a list of aggressive moves by the different southern states... all before Lincoln called up men.
Many of them even happened before Lincoln even became the president.

(put it as a "spoiler" since the list is very long)
Attacks on Federal Facilities, Secession Winter (Source: The Beginning And The End, by Dayton Pryor):

December 27, 1860. The first Federal property to fall into South Carolina hands is the U.S. revenue cutter William Aiken, turned over to secessionists by its commander, Capt. N. l. Coste, who did not resign his commission and herefore was in violation of his oath of office. The crew left the ship and went North.

Castle Pickney was seized by South Carolina militia and a problem arose: were the two Federal soldiers capture in the fort to be considered prisoners of war? If so, it would imply there was, in fact, a war. Following a lengthy discussion, the one Federal officer was allowed to go to Fort Sumter while a sergeant and his family were given safe conduct to remain in their quarters at the fort. What was significant was that the secessionists no held, for the first time, a U.S. fort. Union officer Abner Doubleday called it "...the first overt act of the Secessionists against the Sovereignty of the United States."

Fort Moultrie is taken by South Carolina militia.

December 28, 1860. A detachment of South Carolina militia enters and takes control of Fort Johnson. Three out of four Federal forts have been seized and are now under the control of South Carolina militia troops.

January 3, 1861. The War Department cancelled plans to ship guns from Pittsburgh to the forts in the South. Former Secretary of War Floyd, who resigned and went South, had been shipping weapons and large guns South for the past several months to help build up the Southern arsenals.

January 4, 1861. Even though it has not yet seceded from the Union, Alabama troops seize the U.S. arsenal at Mt. Vernon, Alabama.

January 5, 1861. Even though it STILL has not yet seceded fro the Union, Alabama seizes Fort Morgan and Gaines which protect the harbor at Mobile.

January 6, 1861. Even though it has not yet seceded from the Union, Florida troops seize the Federal arsenal at Apalachiocola.

January 7, 1861. Still not having yet separated from the Union, Florida troops seize Fort Marion at St. Augustine.

January 8, 1861. At Fort Barrancas, guarding the entrance to Pensacola Harbor, Federal troops fired on a raiding party of about twenty men, who then fled.

January 9, 1861. On this day, Senators Judah P. Benjamin and John Slidell of Louisiana telegraphed Gov. Moore of that state, which had not yet seceded from the Union, that Federal gunboats were secretly bringing supplies to the forts at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Here are a pair of men who were secretly betraying a government to which they still swore their allegiance. Gov. Moore ordered Braxton Bragg and 500 troops to seize the forts and the United States arsenal at Baton Roughe.

The Star of the West attempted to resupply Fort Sumter, but was fired upon by a masked battery from Morris Island and then by guns from Fort Moultrie, in spite of the fact two U.S. flags were flown. The ship was repeatedly fired on, forcing it to turn and steam away.

January 10, 1861. Gen. Bragg and the militia seize the U.S. forts and arsenals in Louisana.

January 12, 1861. Capt. James Armstrong, commander of the Warrington Navy Yard at Pensacola, Florida, is captured and regarded as a prisoner of war, and ...placed on his parole of honor...not to bear arms against the State of Florida.

January 13, 1861. Several men are seen near Fort Pickens in the night and were fired upon. These unknown men retired from the area of the fort.

January 21, 1861. Mississippi troops seize Fort Massachusetts off the coast, in the Gulf. Ship Island is also taken.

January 24, 1861. Georgia troops occupy the U.S. arsenal at Augusta.

January 24, 1861. At Savannah, Georgia, Fort Jackson and the Oglethorpe Barracks are seized by state troops.

January 29, 1861. Louisiana state troops take possession of Fort Macomb, outside New Orleans. The revenue cutter Robert McClelland was surrendered to Louisiana state authorities by Capt. Breshwood, despite orders not to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury.

January 31, 1861. In New Orleans, the U.S. Branch Mint was seized by state troops along with the revenue schooner Washington.

February 8, 1861. Before it had seceded from the Union, Arkansas troops seize the Little Rock U.S. arsenal.

(February 11, 1861. Lincoln boards the train that will take him to Washington.)

February 12, 1861. Confederate officials in Montgomery took charge of matters related to occupation of Federal property within the seceded states and all other military matters. On that date they "Resolved in the Congress of the Confederate States of American, That this government takes under its charge the questions and difficulties now existing between the several states of this Confederacy and the government of the United States of America, relative to the occupation of forts, arsenals, navy-yards, and other public establishments..."

February 15, 1861. The Confederate Congress passes a second resolution "That it is the sense of this Congress that immediate steps should be taken to obtain possession of Forts Sumter and Pickens...either by negotiations or force, as early as practicable, and that the President is hereby authorized to make all necessary military preparations..."

February 16, 1861. Before it had seceded from the Union, Texas militia in San Antonio seize the U.S. military compound, barracks and arsenal.

February 19, 1861. In New Orleans, the U.S. Paymaster's office was seized by state troops.

March 2, 1861. Texas, now out of the Union, seized the U.S. revenue schooner Henry Dodge at Galveston.

(March 4, 1861. Lincoln is sworn in as the 16th President of the United States in Washington, D. C.)

March 6, 1861. The Confederate Congress authorizes an army of 100,000 volunteers for twelve months.

March 15, 1861. The State of Louisiana transferred over $536,000 in money taken from the U.S. Mint in New Orleans to the Confederate government.

March 18, 1861. In the Florida panhandle, Gen. Braxton Bragg refused to permit further supply of Fort Pickens.

March 20, 1861. Texas troops seize three more Federal forts. At Mobile, a Federal supply ship, the U.S. sloop Isabella, was seized before it could sail with supplies to Pensacola.

April 3, 1861. In the South, a battery placed on Morris Island in Charleston harbor fired at the Federal schooner Rhoda H. Shannon.

April 12, 1861. At 4:30AM, Fort Sumter was fired upon by Southern forces.

April 15, 1861. President Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers.​

to invade Ft. Sumter.
You cant invade your own territory.

Fort Sumter was a Federal fort on Federal soil. On 21st of december 1836 the South Carolina state house transferred the area to the federal government: "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory,"

Full text of the bill:
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836​
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:


"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.


"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.


"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.


"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."​

"In Senate, December 21st, 1836​
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
Jacob Warly, C. S.
Even if we say that unilateral secession was legal then that would not effect the legal status of the fort. It was part of the USA.


"that secession was treason, when in fact it is part of the American tradition."
No it was not. Here is what slaveowner and southerner Andrews Jackson had to say about it.
"Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. On your unhappy state will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country."
Pres. Andrew Jackson Dec, 1832

R.E.Lee made a similar commend about it in a letter.

Also didn't some of the founding fathers said something about hanging together if they lost?
They knew very well that what they did was treason...


For example the Hartford convention during the War of 1812, where New England states threatened secession because their shipping industry was disrupted.
More myths. Was secession debated? properly. But thee is no evidence that it was seriously considered.
If you think differently.... post the evidence. (primary sources please)


And the last part is more BS.
Please tell me who got the authority to change the makeup of the union?
And then please explain how a US president can allow part of the union to break away without breaking his oath of office.


Andrew Jackson certainly knew his duty in 1832.
And If I remember my US history President Washington lead a small army to suppress a rebellion.
We can also include the militia act of 1792. It give the president the authority to call up militia to suppress insurrections.

---

But I will give you that the blockade was problematic and it did help push the UK and France to recognize the CSA as a belligerent power...

[McMuffin]

As a teacher and writer, and true student of history, I am appalled at the number of people who worship Abraham Lincoln. He was clearly an unpopular president from the beginning and won with less than 40% of the vote. I also always laugh when people try and argue that he ended slavery. If you carefully read the text of the emancipation proclamation, he clearly states it was a "WAR MEASURE" and that it did not apply to parts of VA, TN, and LA where the Union had occupied, nor did it apply to the border states. It also gave the south 100 days to return to the Union and keep its slaves. He explicitly said himself that he would have kept slavery if it could keep the Union together.
In the parts he mentions, it is some counties and cities or towns, small parts of the states. The biggest amount he mentions in Virginia were the ones that were part of the recently created West Virginia,"...except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia...".


The true cause of the war was tariffs. Southerners had to pay outrageous taxes on imports, since the early 1800s, just to "protect" and enrich northern manufacturers. All of the southern states seceded peacefully, and no shots were fired until Lincoln decided to invade Ft. Sumter. Even those shots were forewarned in a series of letters exchanged between the two commanding officers. Many of the states that were last to secede did so because Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade Virginia.
The south wanted to keep slavery, the civil war was about slavery. Go tell me how many times the word slavery comes up in the secession documents versus the word tariffs, I think in Georgia slavery comes up like 27-30 times. And the CSA forces invaded and took a federal military installation, that is treason and of course Lincoln would go and take it back.


He quickly silenced anyone who opposed him, jailing representatives in Delaware and Maryland who also wanted their states to secede. He also shut down newspapers that wrote negative things about him and bought German language newspapers in the north to try and sway public opinion anyway he could.
This though was true, but it's pretty obvious why he did that, doesn't mean it was right. The south wasn't exactly hospitable to any pro-union or pro-Lincoln sources either.


He would not acknowledge the south as an independent nation, yet openly used tactics that were internationally recognized as official acts of war between nations (blockade, destruction of public property, and yes even murder of civilians). The fact is that he was always trying to use his slick lawyer rhetoric to claim that secession was treason, when in fact it is part of the American tradition. For example the Hartford convention during the War of 1812, where New England states threatened secession because their shipping industry was disrupted.
The CSA was not a legal nation.


What the south did in 1860 was no different than what our founding fathers did in 1776. NO DIFFERENT. The same people that declare the south committed treason are also saying that they support a bigger and more unlimited government. Basically over 650,000+ men died because Abraham Lincoln had a certain distorted view of the constitution...
True, both cases are where a group of subsidiary states declared themselves independent of their mother state or controller, but, neither were legal nor were they official. The US just beat the British back so they let us become our own state. And what the southern states did was one hundred percent treason, fighting federal troops, not following all laws imposed previously or new ones created, seizing federal land and installations and everything else they did as a nation.

Sources:

http://www.tnmuseum.org/files/1143/File/Emancipation%20Proclamation%20Text(1).pdf (Emancipation Proclamation)
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp (Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America)

[GeorgeCrecy]

Hey there Younger Longest,

I too am an avid student (and sometimes, just yet) teacher of history. But part of what is necessary as a historian is to drop any initial biases we might have as researchers and look for only the truth, and sift through the lies and biases of those we are researching. We should then present an unbiased view from there.
So that being said, just looking at the dates as were amply provided above, it is clear that the war was that of Southern Aggression, contrary to the popular name.

Secondly, there were various atrocities committed by both sides. It was a war after all. That does include various rather despotic acts done by Lincoln which were absolutely wrong. For that, Lincoln is rightly criticised.

Finally, it is very important that this false narrative of the war being about tariffs or state rights be quashed right back under the apologetic rock it came from. It is very clear as from above in regards to the falsehood about tariffs. In regards to states rights, while that is definitely a term older than the Civil War, when applied to the Civil War the unanswered question is the states' rights to do what? To continue and regulate slavery. As was mentioned, nearly every document of secession from each state themselves explicitly stated that slavery was the main cause of their wanting to secede.

Again, this is not a matter of Northern biases, this is a matter of simple facts. It is fact that post-war efforts were to create a Lost Cause movement that downplayed the obvious wrong of slavery, and to make pervasive a culture of victimhood in response to the wrongs committed on the south by the Radical Republicans in the Reconstruction.
I look forward to this thread being a measured and calm discussion. The goal is to discuss the facts, not enflame ones' feelings.

[A. P. Hill]

:O is it the return of Vermont I see?

Nah, it's too short. :p

[Younger Longest]

To the person above that cited all of the forts being seized, again show me where shots were fired and southerners were killing people. The only example I know of was a man named James W Jackson who killed a Union soldier for taking a confederate flag from atop his hotel in Virginia. And regarding the "seizing" of the forts, if the state taxpayers had funded the building of the forts, I don't see any reason they wouldn't have the right to take it, seeing as how they had just formed their own sovereign state peacefully.

To all the people saying slavery is some distinct southern evil: Tell me any major national political party that had a serious platform to end slavery before the Republicans (there's only 1). Slavery was foundational in America and southern presidents dominated for most of our early history. Not many, if any, northern presidents served two terms before Lincoln, and that was only with half of the country voting for him. But as far as the slave issue, Lincoln himself favored colonization because he wanted the western territory open for free white men, he said this himself in various letters, even Frederick Douglass said he was a "white man's president." The South compromised again and again on slavery, it was a national wrong. There's a huge list of countries that ended slavery peacefully. The best way to end slavery would have been to emancipate, compensate the owners (as England did), and form some type of integration. Instead they destroyed the south and segregated black and white people to sow discord between the races...

Say what you will, but segregation was not an official law in the south until after the War Between the States. When Alexander de Tocqueville, a famous French political philosopher, visited America in the 1830's he remarked that southerners lived among blacks and had casual relations, whereas in the north they were more distinctly separated and outcast. Blacks and whites lived together in the south for a long time, meanwhile you had northern states like Lincoln's ILLINOIS, which did not even allow FREE BLACK PEOPLE for many years. Most of the northern states and Midwestern passed some type of laws that excluded or altogether banned blacks. I'm not trying to lessen the moral evils of slavery, but census data from 1850 even shows that slaves in the south were outliving people that worked in factories in the north. And the population of slaves went up by tens, hundreds of thousands every decade. That's not an indicator of a population that is being treated brutally all over.

The fact that the War Between the States was "about" slavery was created as a fable to shape the event as some righteous crusade by Abraham Lincoln. Again, countries separate all the time peacefully and people don't die. JUST LOOK AT EUROPE PEOPLE... Adolf Hitler and Karl Marx both LOVED Abraham Lincoln because he was able to CRUSH state sovereignty and CENTRALIZE the government. America was a Confederacy for our first years, and the Articles of Confederation formed a "perpetual union." We all know how that worked out, the government was not strong enough to collect the taxes...so they brought in the Constitution, which do not say anything about being "perpetual" because they knew it would have been a mistake to do so.


Finally TO ALL THE PEOPLE SAYING SECESSION IS TREASON / THE SOUTH WAS NOT A LEGITIMATE NATION: Again Article VII of the constitution states that "The ratification of this constitution between the nine states will be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution, between the states so ratified"...So you're telling me the 13 separate colonies can form a compact, fight a war over taxes and tea, then form a constitution between nine of them--but it was wrong for the South to have eleven states and try to form their own constitutional government? The short-sightedness and shallowness of your perception is quite obvious. I can definitely tell you were good public school students that really absorbed everything from your textbooks...

[Younger Longest]

If you've any love for the South, I imagine you have to have some contempt in regards to Lincoln. He, just as Sherman or Grant, holds responsibility for the destruction of the Old South and the crushing of any hopes for Southern independence.

But, hate? No, not really. His job was to preserve the Union and he did, if at the cost of 600K+ lives. I can't imagine anyone doing much better while in his position, if allowing secession was absolutely not a viable option. We could sit here all day and argue the particulars of whether he was a tyrant, murderer, or whatnot. In the end, he was just a man, not a devil.

I'd much rather dwell on the great deeds of my ancestors and other Southerners than seethe with rage towards Lincoln.

I'm not saying I hate him in the sense that I'm going to bed angry. I respect him as a WAR president and as a leader. But I question his tactics and the blind worship of him. I've taught hundreds of students that all have the impression he ended slavery, when they have never even taken the time to read his own letters or debates. I question how a president who literally abused his power to invade another section of the country, among many other crimes...and then be consistently labeled as a great president. It confuses me.

[Younger Longest]

Also, to the guy above that pointed out Andrew Jackson and the Nullification Crisis of 1832, you totally prove my point. You even take it a step further by adding Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion. Sure, you could use some slick rhetoric to argue those gave some precedence to Lincoln...but at the end of the day you prove that no president wants to be responsible for the break up of the Union, and you also prove my point that the protective tariff was a divisive and sectional problem in itself. THE SOUTH WANTED FREE TRADE, take a simple economics class today and you will find that is the most desirable thing we could implement from an economic standpoint. The tariff was for nothing other than to enrich northern industry. Look no further than Lincoln's lap-dog Thaddeus Stephens, who owned some iron producing plants and made thousands of dollars extra per mile of railroad laid when we could have imported it more cheaply from GB.

And to the constant remarks about the treason and Hartford Convention not being a legitimate talk of secession, just look the document up on line...they clearly discussed it openly and it was considered an option. Just like Vermont still talks about secession its elections almost every other year. Just like Californians are talking about in 2018 because they are butt-hurt about Donald Trump. Just like America did to Great Britain. SECESSION IS AMERICAN TRADITION. In 1798, Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, which argued states had the right to interpose and nullify federal laws they did not agree with (alien and sedition acts). States do this on some level today through things like marijuana, and even cities now are embracing this with their immigrant "sanctuary" cities. ITS OKAY TO TELL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NO.

You guys have been saying the pledge of allegiance so long and being brainwashed that we are "indivisible," like good sheep. Haters can cherry pick certain ideas to argue with my logic, but at the end of the day the fact remains that what the south did was NO DIFFERENT than what the colonies did in 1776, slavery and all.

[Younger Longest]

Thomas Aagaard

And the last part is more BS.
Please tell me who got the authority to change the makeup of the union?
And then please explain how a US president can allow part of the union to break away without breaking his oath of office.


Please explain why James Buchanan did nothing when the first state seceded. OH I KNOW WHY...because he looked at his constitution and realized there was nothing that said they COULD NOT SECEDE. Franklin Pierce was another president that openly sympathized with the Confederacy and saw nothing wrong with them legally forming their own nation.

And to your BS about restructuring the Union, people had been doing that since the beginning. You seem to like precedence so you could look to the Louisiana Purchase (which northerners thought was unconstitutional and a waste of money for Jefferson's science experiments) , Texas American War (which some northerners also argued was over expanding slavery), etc...all of which resulted in presidents creating new territory, structuring new state lines, etc

[Tennessee_Volunteer]

The south wanted to keep slavery, the civil war was about slavery. Go tell me how many times the word slavery comes up in the secession documents versus the word tariffs, I think in Georgia slavery comes up like 27-30 times.

Slavery is obviously what stirred Southern elites and politicians to take the drastic actions that they did. But to say the war was only over slavery isn't fair. The best way to put it is as a war for Southern Independence. Slavery was the match that set off a powder keg. North and South prior to Lincoln's election were de facto 2 different states. Culturally and economically they operated on a very different level, and still do to this day.

Without the issue of slavery, it's quite likely there wouldn't have been a war in 1861. But, how long could they live alongside one another? Would something else arise that could spark passions like the problem of slavery did? Would a Northern politician organize to undermine the South, or vice versa? Could a border dispute escalate? I don't know because the war happened as we know it, but I think these are legitimize questions. In my mind, a civil war with or without slavery was imminent. The Old South was determined to win independence or die.

Loyalty to North or South is what ultimately caused legions to rise to the occasion, not necessarily slavery or abolition.

[McMuffin]

Slavery is obviously what stirred Southern elites and politicians to take the drastic actions that they did. But to say the war was only over slavery isn't fair. The best way to put it is as a war for Southern Independence. Slavery was the match that set off a powder keg. North and South prior to Lincoln's election were de facto 2 different states. Culturally and economically they operated on a very different level, and still do to this day.

Without the issue of slavery, it's quite likely there wouldn't have been a war in 1861. But, how long could they live alongside one another? Would something else arise that could spark passions like the problem of slavery did? Would a Northern politician organize to undermine the South, or vice versa? Could a border dispute escalate? I don't know because the war happened as we know it, but I think these are legitimize questions. In my mind, a civil war with or without slavery was imminent. The Old South was determined to win independence or die.

Loyalty to North or South is what ultimately caused legions to rise to the occasion, not necessarily slavery or abolition.

You are correct, I should not have said it was solely about slavery. It was started over a few things but was drawn out for many reasons. The match that lit the fire of the Civil War was slavery, the wooden fuel was state loyalty. Plus, in the south they mainly saw a tyrannical government invading and killing their own citizens, those same southerners think “Hang on, I thought we just revolted against this” so it was much easier for the south to justify fighting so long. They would be just like their revolutionary forefathers, and maybe history would favor them and they’d win like last time! The North had the tough job of keeping troop morale up for the whole war and keep the troops as fierce fighting as the south. They had to justify going in, killing American citizens and destroying their land, American land. And they knew they looked like the oppressors that their founding fathers fought. Imagine having to keep that army in high spirits and fighting against the south with the justification of “Oh, we gotta keep the Union together...and uh, oh, slavery is bad!” Those weren’t good enough reasons to justify these men seeing companies of their comrades die in combat and stay loyal for reasons they don’t care about.

And I think that as the Northern states became more and more industrially differing from the south, and especially different on views on slavery, and southern exports of cotton and other products continued in Europe and the south became increasingly centered on exporting their agricultural products, it would just reinforce the thinking of both sides and eventually result in Civil War. Longevity and damage though is something that could vary. The Northern states had the mindset of (Lincoln also) slavery would be all or nothing, throughout the whole US or nowhere.

[OleSawedBones]

Won't read the depth here but as I am going through 75% of Shelby Foote's Civil War Series there was some questionable things done by Lincoln(and the Union). Though I also read 12 Years A Slave and whoa. If you haven't(read it)

I am ignorant ... I know I am but I feel there is righteousness in the Northern Cause. The War is Ghastly sitting on a table with your leg being sawed off so some Rich guy can keep his Wallet Chubby makes me sick to my stomach so bad... How any Southern Boy fought for what he thought was his SweetHeart and Land is interesting.

Only the Ignorant and I am ignorant. So I suppose I would have up until a point.

[Kane Kaizer]

The Lost Cause is a lost cause, my friend

[thomas aagaard]

The tariff was for nothing other than to enrich northern industry.
---
And to the constant remarks about the treason and Hartford Convention not being a legitimate talk of secession, just look the document up on line...
You do realize that the federal government had expenses?
building and maintaining lighthouses, forts, the army, and actually running the government.

And money had to come from some were. And since there was no income tax more than 90% of the Federal income was from the Tariffs.
Tariffs where essential to funding the federal government.


Hartford Convention - You made the claim, you prove it.



Thomas Aagaard


Please explain why James Buchanan did nothing when the first state seceded.
And again you show you lack of knowledge...

For one thing he send supplies to fort Sumter... and then SC militia fired on that ship. (something I actually pointed out in my first post)
2nd he clearly decided to leave the trouble to the next guy in officer.
Also, Lincoln did the same "nothing" until the csa fired on a US fort on US soil.
Why? because they both hoped that time would calm the situation and allow for a solution..
(even after the fighting stated Lincoln prioritized getting troops to areas of unionism)

The attack on the fort gave Lincoln the political and popular support needed to call out the militia.


The make up of the union.
You clearly don't know who can change the union...


It is congress that change the makeup of the union.
(Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, of the Constitution)
The Louisiana Purchase did not add any states by it self. Later bills in Congress did.
(Louisiana did not become a state until April 30, 1812... that should make this clear to you)
The same with adding Texas and the north western (Free) states. Congress added them to the union as states.


And finally you obviously don't understand the difference between unilateral secession and secession with the consent of the other states.


So you're telling me the 13 separate colonies can form a compact, fight a war over taxes and tea, then form a constitution between nine of them--but it was wrong for the South to have eleven states and try to form their own constitutional government?
Yes, the founding fathers all knew that what they did was treason against the King.
(They then formed a confederation. Then people realized that it did not work and made a much closer federation with Constitution... something you conveniently "forgot")
Similar unilateral secession was unconstitutional and rebellion.


Also you should really sit down and try get a basic understand on how the USA works structurally.
Federal property belong to All the people of the USA. Some people in one states can't just decide that they want to take control of the local post office or mint.
I get the feeling that you never studied any of this at all...


And finally, you have not backed up any of you claims with any sources... primary or secondary... Looks like you are just repeating Lost cause myths you read on some random website.

[thomas aagaard]

Won't read the depth here but as I am going through 75% of Shelby Foote's Civil War Series there was some questionable things done by Lincoln(and the Union).

They are a great narrative but they are not history books.

A historian give sources for his claims and use footnotes. Foote didn't and is as such not an historian.
And he make some claims that noone else can back up and he make some claims that is simply wrong.
(Like Bufords men having repeaters at Gettysburg... a common myth)


But yes, some questionable things was certainly done by Lincoln.

[thomas aagaard]

:O is it the return of Vermont I see?

No He was much better at giving sources for his claims.

usually only with half the information, and many quotes was out of context, or misquotes...

He actually had some knowledge about the topic... unlike this guy.

[thomas aagaard]

Just like America did to Great Britain. .
You need to read a history book because that makes no sense.
America did not secede from Great Britain.


British subjects felt oppressed and tried repeatedly to get things changed.
After a year of warfare between the colonialists and the British army they accepted that the king would never back down, so they declared their Independence.

With the articles of confederation you can argue that the USA came into existence, but not until 1783 did this happen both de jury and de facto with the international recognition of the USA as an independent and sovereign state.

So the people of the 13 colonies declared their independence... then later organized them self into a new state called the USA.

[Younger Longest]

Thomas Aagaard,

You are cherry picking points of mine. I clearly mentioned the articles of confederation. As I said, if you read the text of the Articles, it says they were a "perpetual union." They scrapped the articles without the approval of all the states, that's why only nine originally signed the constitution, and that's why the constitution does not say "perpetual" anywhere in the text. The only reason you are saying secession is treason now is because the south lost. The War Between the States was a test of that idea, which was still very ambiguous and a real question up until that point.

As to secession being any different from the revolution, you are also just ignorant and only looking at it from one side. When every southern state wrote their ordinances of secession, they were basically writing their own declarations of independence. Someone above mentioned slavery as a constant term being brought up by the southern states, WELL YES BECAUSE IT WAS CONSTIUTIONALLY LEGAL AT THE TIME. They also mention things like the extradition of John Brown, Lincoln's invasion, etc.

You're not over here providing sources either. I'm not making any facts up, you are just refusing to open your mind.

[Younger Longest]

Thomas Aagaard

I'm not understanding why you are so shallow and pedantic on the Ft. Sumter events. Please show your sources on SC firing on ships sent by Buchanan.

The fact is, SC was independent by the time Lincoln snuck Robert Anderson into the Fort. He even ignored messages from Anderson requesting more supplies and help. The fact is, Lincoln wanted Sumter to prevent SC from trading because Charleston was the one of the most valuable ports in the south. He intended to collect the tariff.

Robert Anderson's former student, PGT Beauregard was the confederate commander outside the fort. They exchanged letters for days in friendly fashion, and neither intended to start a war. Anderson knew the exact hour the south would fire on him, and refused to leave because Lincoln needed some reason to instigate the war. This is why Lincoln did not respond to various messages from Anderson requesting aid.

[Younger Longest]

BOTTOM LINE, the war was over tariffs. If the south would have been okay with paying the tariffs, then they would have stayed in the union and slavery would have probably lasted longer.

Slavery was a non issue, the west was practically settled and its not as if slavery could have expanded into the New Mexican desert.

LOOK UP THE CORWIN AMENDMENT PEOPLE. It was a constitutional amendment proposed that would have forbidden any interference where slavery. Some SCHOLARS claim this was written by Lincoln himself. But the bill died because the south just no longer had interest in remaining in the union. Which, again, was a perfectly reasonable and valid argument at the time.

[Younger Longest]

You need to read a history book because that makes no sense.
America did not secede from Great Britain.

So the people of the 13 colonies declared their independence... then later organized them self into a new state called the USA.

I've read a lot of history books, probably more than you. You're ignoring the language of the constitution itself, the declaration AND constitution both say it was between the states. You're also ignoring that there had been anti-federalists like Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, etc that had been against consolidation of a central government.

Finally, look up the original state constitutions of New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia after the Revolution. All three of those states explicitly reserved the right to secede or regain their independence whenever they desired. This is common knowledge, but I will find the actual source for this if you need to see it.

[thomas aagaard]

And more claims with no evidence and more claims that is not correct.

All 13 states rectified the Constitution. Rhode Island was last and did it on May 29, 1790
(any book about the Constitution will show this.)

Not all southern states wrote ordinances of secession. Only 5 of them did.
(if you disagree please prove it)

None of them mention "Lincoln's invasion"
Georgia's is the only one to mention Lincoln and it complain about the republicans and how they are a threat to slavery.
(again, please tell us what text mention Lincoln's invasion...)

John Brown was prosecuted in Virginia under Virginian law..
So please quote the text that complain about him being extradited


My first post had plenty of sources... and you have yet to give one single one.

[thomas aagaard]

Thomas Aagaard

I'm not understanding why you are so shallow and pedantic on the Ft. Sumter events. Please show your sources on SC firing on ships sent by .

I would think that the firing at Star of the West was common knowledge.
(but I already posted the source: The Beginning And The End, by Dayton Pryor it got the list of aggressive actions)

But you can read a bit about it here:
http://www.citadel.edu/root/star-ofthe-west-152



"Charleston was the one of the most valuable ports in the south."
New Orleans collected about 3.1 million out of the 4.million $ in Tariffs collected in the south.
So Charleston and the rest of the ports in the south only collected 0.9 million$ and as such was pretty insignificant.
Especially when compared to the fact that New york collected $34.9 million.
[Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, “Trade Figures by Port in 1860” and “Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)”]

But you are correct that Lincoln wanted the tariffs collected. At the US president his duty is to enforce the law and the law said that tariffs was to be collected.

[Younger Longest]

Posting a book, a secondary source, is not an accurate source. And yea all 13 states signed, but not at the same time. North Carolina, Rhode Island, etc did not sign until later.

And the articles were never properly dissolved, to make any changes explicitly required the approval of all states, yet they were scrapped without the consent of ALL the states.

[Younger Longest]

For all the haters asking for sources, eat your heart out:

Alexander de Tocqueville in Democracy in America:

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together have not forfeited their nationality...if one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so."

Votes on Secession

South Carolina, December 20, 1860, by a 169 versus 0 vote

Mississippi, January 9, by a 84 versus 15 vote
This was the same time that Federals reinforced Fort Sumter with 200 soldiers and supplies, but failed when the SC artillery turned back the merchant ship Star of the West while the escorting warship Brooklyn declined to engage its guns. Jeremiah S. Black of PA had advised President Buchanan that he could defend the government but had no right to use offensive force against a state.

Florida, January 10, by a 62 versus 7 vote

Alabama, January 11, by a 61 versus 39 vote

Georgia, January 19, by a 208 versus 89 vote

Louisiana, January 26, by a 113 versus 17 vote

Texas, February 1, by a 166 versus 8 vote


North Carolina Governor John Ellis, to Lincoln:
"I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the United States, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina."

Arkansas Governor Henry Rector:
"The people of this Commonwealth are freemen, not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity, their honor, lives, and property against Northern mendacity and usurpation."

On the Declaration of Independence somehow creating a Union
The essential "proposition" of the Declaration was not equality but the consent of the governed. The Declaration did not establish a "nation" but was a manifesto of the 13 colonies struggling to become "free and independent states"...It was a list of complaints to the King of England

Virginia resolution, ratifying the Constitution on June 26, 1788:
“We the delegates of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression”

New York Resolution, July 26 1788:
“We the delegates of the people of the State of New York...do declare and make known-

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness”

Rhode Island, May 29 1790 (after most states had signed the Constitution):
“...the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness”

[Oleander]

Take slavery out of the equation and ask yourself if there would have been a war.

[Younger Longest]

Take slavery out of the equation and ask yourself if there would have been a war.


SLAVERY WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL. LINCOLN SAID HIMSELF HE WOULD HAVE KEPT SLAVERY OR DONE AWAY WITH IT TO KEEP THE UNION TOGETHER. Many northern states did not even allow free black people. When African Americans fought for the Union, they were NOT paid equally to the white soldiers. If you think it was really "about slavery," read the CORWIN AMENDMENT.

Furthermore, the logic that southerners were all fighting for slavery is insane. Why would a "white supremacist" put his life on the line for a black person? The truth is they were PROTECTING THEIR HOMES FROM INVASION

[Younger Longest]

ANYWAYS, I'm done arguing. My only point was that Abraham Lincoln was a war criminal, even by today's standards.

Anyone who looks at the war OJBECTIVELY, and not from a NATIONALIST standpoint would see that Lincoln went to great lengths just to keep the south from being independent.

The first shots at Fort Sumter caused no bloodshed, and were not an act of declaring war anymore than the first shots of the Revolution in Lexington and Concord were.

Funny how I posted on LINCOLN SPECIFICALLY, then I get rants from a bunch of Lincoln fan-boys marching to his defense. READ HIS OWN LETTERS, he was just as racist as anyone else in America at that time. Everyone keeps chanting "lost cause, lost cause..." all the south wanted was consent of the governed, free trade, and to be left alone. This was expressed multiple times by its president Jefferson Davis.

[Younger Longest]

Another primary source

Hitler on Lincoln's genius in shutting down state sovereignty:

http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/meinkampf/v2c10.htm



Karl Marx, another Lincoln fan boy, congratulating him on his re-election:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

[Oleander]

SLAVERY WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL. LINCOLN SAID HIMSELF HE WOULD HAVE KEPT SLAVERY OR DONE AWAY WITH IT TO KEEP THE UNION TOGETHER.

Wait let me do that too. I NEVER SAID IT WASN'T LEGAL! The argument is over whether the Fed had the right to declare it illegal since slaves were considered property. It would be the same as the gov't trying to confiscate your cell phone today.

As for Lincoln, he was a politician and a lawyer, what do you expect? Do I hate him, no. Do I agree with him, no. He did what he thought was right, he should have been impeached for abuse of power, but he got a pass because of the war. John Wilkes Booth shot him and the south suffered because of it. At best he was ok.

Are we really going Reductio ad Hitlerum? Seriously?

[Younger Longest]

Wait let me do that too. I NEVER SAID IT WASN'T LEGAL! The argument is over whether the Fed had the right to declare it illegal since slaves were considered property. It would be the same as the gov't trying to confiscate your cell phone today.

As for Lincoln, he was a politician and a lawyer, what do you expect? Do I hate him, no. Do I agree with him, no. He did what he thought was right, he should have been impeached for abuse of power, but he got a pass because of the war. John Wilkes Booth shot him and the south suffered because of it. At best he was ok.

Are we really going Reductio ad Hitlerum? Seriously?


My problem is that he is consistently listed as a "great president" when in reality he caused the death of hundreds of thousands and spent a fortune on the war. The best presidents should be those that AVOID major conflicts and compromise, in my opinion.

And, yes, I bring up Hitler because he and Lincoln basically are ideological twins when it comes to their views on state sovereignty.

[Dman979]

My problem is that he is consistently listed as a "great president" when in reality he caused the death of hundreds of thousands and spent a fortune on the war. The best presidents should be those that AVOID major conflicts and compromise, in my opinion.

And when compromise isn't possible, should they roll over and die?


And, yes, I bring up Hitler because he and Lincoln basically are ideological twins when it comes to their views on state sovereignty.

Wooo hooo! It's Godwin time, baby! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)

Best,
Dman979

[Younger Longest]

And when compromise isn't possible, should they roll over and die?

Pretty sure that's not what I said...but also not sure why invasion of your own country is justified by a failure to compromise

[Dman979]

Pretty sure that's not what I said...but also not sure why invasion of your own country is justified by a failure to compromise

That seems to have two parts to it, so I'll address them separately.

First, I didn't imply, say, insinuate, suggest, hint, indicate, signal, nor convey the impression that's what you said. I'm only asking you what should they do when compromise isn't possible?

Second,
https://i.imgflip.com/20c81l.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/20c81l)

Best,
Dman979

[Younger Longest]

Please explain how calling for 75,000 soldiers to attack another state in your "union" does not qualify as an invasion...multiple southern states only chose secession after Lincoln did this. Please see the quotes above from North Carolina and Arkansas governors. Your ignoramus attitude and the fact you resort to "memes" to prove your point only show that you are refusing to look at facts...

[Dman979]

Please explain how calling for 75,000 soldiers to attack another state in your "union" does not qualify as an invasion.

It was suppressing an insurrection. No invasion needed!

Anyway, what should a president do when they can't compromise?

Best,
Dman979

[Younger Longest]

Yea it was an "insurrection" of states that decided to legally and peacefully secede. Show me a constitutional provision that shows this was illegal. It really came down to Lincoln's interpretation. As I stated before, several former presidents sympathized with the south and saw nothing constitutionally wrong with seceding.

And as to your question about what do when compromise fails, HOW ABOUT SOMETHING PEACEFUL ? Or he could have just made peace with the south and recognized them as an independent country, which was all they wanted. This was what his former general, George B. McClellan proposed when he ran against Lincoln in the election of 1864

[Dman979]

And as to your question about what do when compromise fails, HOW ABOUT SOMETHING PEACEFUL ? Or he could have just made peace with the south and recognized them as an independent country, which was all they wanted. This was what his former general, George B. McClellan proposed when he ran against Lincoln in the election of 1864

LIKE WHAT SPECIFICALLY? Recognizing them as an independent country was out of the question, so let's put that option aside as gutless and delusional- much like McClelan himself during the war.

Best,
Dman979

[Younger Longest]

LIKE WHAT SPECIFICALLY? Recognizing them as an independent country was out of the question, so let's put that option aside as gutless and delusional- much like McClelan himself during the war.

Best,
Dman979

Wow, so recognizing fellow Americans' right to self government is "gutless and delusional"...why don't we just go ahead and form Europe into one giant country too. Aren't they all just European after all?

Recognizing them as a country would have probably improved relations between the two sections and would have helped avoid a needless war.

Why are you so insistent that the south had to be subdued?

[David Dire]

Right, let's just let regions form their own countries willie-nillie. I'm sure Ukraine, Texas, India, or countless other examples aren't representative of what countries should do...

[Saris]

Right, let's just let regions form their own countries willie-nillie. I'm sure Ukraine, Texas, India, or countless other examples aren't representative of what countries should do...

Did somebody say Texas?

[Dman979]

Did somebody say Texas?

Yeah, David Dire, I've heard it said that you shouldn't mess with Texas. ;)

Best,
Dman979

[John Jones]

Right, let's just let regions form their own countries willie-nillie. I'm sure Ukraine, Texas, India, or countless other examples aren't representative of what countries should do...

Ummm.....we did. Northern Ireland, Wales and especially Scotland have received significant autonomy from the UK government but only Scotland is likely to become independent in the foreseeable future. Although I'm pretty sure they would pronounce it "Wullie Nullie".

[McMuffin]

Right, let's just let regions form their own countries willie-nillie. I'm sure Ukraine, Texas, India, or countless other examples aren't representative of what countries should do...

California comes around the corner




"whatchu say man"

[Younger Longest]

We have been taught that secession is treasonous, when it was a perfectly ambiguous and reasonable topic in the 1800s. States are talking about it now, and even nullification is going on at various levels.

You guys make some good points bringing up the UK, which as we all know just performed its "Brexit" from the European Union...which has been a disaster for Europe. There's nothing wrong with wanting to form new confederations and unions, etc.

Some simple research will show you that the countries with the highest ratings of freedom and liberty are SMALL countries. Luxembourg, Qatar, Switzerland etc. Switzerland is a confederacy and has some of the best education, healthcare, etc in the world.

The government we were left with after The War Between the States was no better than the one before it. It created segregation under law and found a new form of enslavement in convict labor and the private prison industrial complex. We've allowed our government to become so centralized and powerful that they can force you to buy health insurance...

ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION...would you pay taxes if there were no penalty? If you answered no (like most common sense people) you would realize that the government is extorting us by taxes. If you are only doing something to avoid punishment, that is by definition extortion. We allow them to steal from us.

And now our nation does exactly what it did to the south--on a world scale. Invade, destroy, restructure...rinse, repeat...Japan, Vietnam, Latin America, Middle East. The list goes on

[OleSawedBones]

Being an amateur on the subject I will oversimplify things. It's in men's nature to fight and if you give them a reason and they're bored they will likely do it.

Of course it's not quite as glorious when it turns out like the Civil War did! Other than I would question why would Americans fight Americans on anything. We are the Home of Freedom/Peace/Equality and such. Or at least I like to think so!

[Extracrispi]

Younger Longest,

Since everyone else seems to be voicing their opinion I guess I'll drop my two cents as well.

As a Sons of Confederate Veterans member, I am quite sympathetic to your views and I enjoy lively debate as much as anyone else. But for the sake of keeping this community enjoyable for everyone, I'm going to recommend you not bring up discussions about politics here or at the very least do so in a more moderate tone so as not to encourage others to avoid escalating the debate the *insert bodily excretion here*-flinging you tend see literally everywhere else in this.

You are of course free to ignore me and speak your mind as you see fit if you want. But I suggest you exercise restraint.

If you want to have an unfiltered debate about the American Civil War and all the good and bad things that go along with that, I suggest http://boards.4chan.org/pol/ you're always guaranteed to have a lively thread when it comes to that.

Avoid the History and Humanities board though, unless you don't mind 300+ replies of "Sherman should've burned babies alive" spam or pregnant Anne Frank fetishizing (if you don't know what that is, DON'T ASK)

And remember, it's not just you who's got something at stake here. If political discourse on this forum is allowed to get as caustic as it is everywhere, we might find ourselves stuck with our version of the gag rule.

Anyways, welcome to the community.

7617

[Younger Longest]

Younger Longest,

Since everyone else seems to be voicing their opinion I guess I'll drop my two cents as well.

As a Sons of Confederate Veterans member, I am quite sympathetic to your views and I enjoy lively debate as much as anyone else. But for the sake of keeping this community enjoyable for everyone, I'm going to recommend you not bring up discussions about politics here or at the very least do so in a more moderate tone so as not to encourage others to avoid escalating the debate the *insert bodily excretion here*-flinging you tend see literally everywhere else in this.

You are of course free to ignore me and speak your mind as you see fit if you want. But I suggest you exercise restraint.

If you want to have an unfiltered debate about the American Civil War and all the good and bad things that go along with that, I suggest http://boards.4chan.org/pol/ you're always guaranteed to have a lively thread when it comes to that.

Avoid the History and Humanities board though, unless you don't mind 300+ replies of "Sherman should've burned babies alive" spam or pregnant Anne Frank fetishizing (if you don't know what that is, DON'T ASK)

And remember, it's not just you who's got something at stake here. If political discourse on this forum is allowed to get as caustic as it is everywhere, we might find ourselves stuck with our version of the gag rule.

Anyways, welcome to the community.

7617

Looks like I will have to join it. The moderators are banning my free speech and closed my other thread you commented on

[TrustyJam]

Looks like I will have to join it. The moderators are banning my free speech and closed my other thread you commented on

There is no free speech here. This is a forum owned and run by Campfire Games.

If you want to use your free speech I suggest you create your own forum.

- Trusty

[Younger Longest]

There is no free speech here. This is a forum owned and run by Campfire Games.

If you want to use your free speech I suggest you create your own forum.

- Trusty

Spoken like a true Hitler youth!