Abe had other concerns. I never said he thought it was about slavery. For him it was about rebellion and the destruction of the union. I said the South started a war of rebellion and secession in order to get out of a union that was likely to go abolitionist with the entry of a few more states. With the election of an abolitionist president, they figured there was no advantage to waiting.
If you want to bring up a constitutional issue, be my guest...but so far, you haven't. The rebellion was for the exact purpose of overthrowing the Constitution...and creating a new nation and a new Constitution.
My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
Excerpt
All researchable.
Abe was the founder of our bloated fed we join here today over.
The Federal Reserve system was created in 1913. Perhaps you misspoke.
The South declared war on 20 December 1860. How could the south declare war against a message penned half a year later? Lincoln hadn't become President until 4 March 1861. Do you have time flowing backward?
Abe suspended habeas corpus, he didn't want free speech or the press to .. freely speak, weird..
He had no congressional authority to go to war.
3- ignored all constitutional provisions for state's rights..
And in doing so he broke the constitution allowing for an overpowered fed .. weird .. look where we're at currently.
The south, I'm having trouble finding anything on a violation. Our founding documents say we have the power to overthrow a tyrannical government, which, oddly, has existed since Abe.
All the complaints about Lincoln would not have occurred without the breaking of War by the South. So far as he knew, he was quelling an insurrection and already had the authority to enforce the Constitution. But you are blaming the victim, since the South struck first.
The South committed rebellion and sedition by their violation of union under the Constitution. And a third of its population was enslaved. For you, that is no big deal. You don't see massive slavery as a "tyrannical government." That is a bit nearsighted. Your continued reluctance to face that issue is bad optics for you.
It's well documented Abe took over Sumter with aggression.
Abe himself said it was to collect taxes, but really it was to piss in some faces to create a war congress never would have approved. The biggest type of snake. Wanting the south to pay taxes to help pay for the lobbyists that got him elected.
The site for Sumter had been ceded by South Carolina in 1836, 24 years before Lincoln became President. It was a federal construction for the U.S. Army, which had several forts on that shore. How can Lincoln "take over" a fort that was federal to begin with? You are not making sense, or simply misunderstand the history of events.
Since the presence and plan for the Fort predated Lincoln, how was it then his plan to use it to collect taxes? When it hadn't even been completed at the outbreak of war?
Lincoln did not claim slavery was a reason even in his Emancipation Proclamations on Sept. 22, 1862, and Jan. 1, 1863. Moreover, Lincoln's proclamations exempted a million slaves under his control from being freed (including General U.S. Grant's four slaves) and offered the South three months to return to the Union (pay 40 percent sales tax) and keep their slaves. None did. Lincoln affirmed his only reason for issuing was: "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said (tax) rebellion."
You are barking up the wrong tree. I have never maintained that slavery was an issue to Lincoln, but it was THE issue for the South. And the war would NOT have occurred had the South not perceived the future term under Lincoln to be perilous to the continuation of slavery. You are arguing a point not at issue.
It was on April 8, 1861, that Lincoln, alone, started the war by a surprise attack on Charleston Harbor with a fleet of warships, led by the USS Harriet Lane, to occupy Fort Sumter, a Federal tax collection fort in the territorial waters of South Carolina and then invaded Virginia.
No, the South succeeded on 20 December 1860, demanded that Washington surrender the Fort (robbery), and commenced the bombardment on 12 April 1861 (act of war, or insurrection). The naval force was not intended to occupy Fort Sumter but to provision it with food and ammunition, as the troops there were running out of supplies. The Fort was already in federal hands...as it was from the beginning, a federal fort. I am at pains to understand how it is possible to invade Virginia from Charleston, South Carolina, when North Carolina is in the way.
The USRC Harriet Lane was a revenue cutter. The "fleet" retired after Major Robert Anderson surrendered the Fort on 13 April and evacuated to the ships.
Abe had other concerns. I never said he thought it was about slavery. For him it was about rebellion and the destruction of the union. I said the South started a war of rebellion and secession in order to get out of a union that was likely to go abolitionist with the entry of a few more states. With the election of an abolitionist president, they figured there was no advantage to waiting.
If you want to bring up a constitutional issue, be my guest...but so far, you haven't. The rebellion was for the exact purpose of overthrowing the Constitution...and creating a new nation and a new Constitution.
My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
Excerpt
All researchable.
Abe was the founder of our bloated fed we join here today over.
The Federal Reserve system was created in 1913. Perhaps you misspoke.
The South declared war on 20 December 1860. How could the south declare war against a message penned half a year later? Lincoln hadn't become President until 4 March 1861. Do you have time flowing backward?
Abe suspended habeas corpus, he didn't want free speech or the press to .. freely speak, weird..
He had no congressional authority to go to war.
3- ignored all constitutional provisions for state's rights..
And in doing so he broke the constitution allowing for an overpowered fed .. weird .. look where we're at currently.
The south, I'm having trouble finding anything on a violation. Our founding documents say we have the power to overthrow a tyrannical government, which, oddly, has existed since Abe.
All the complaints about Lincoln would not have occurred without the breaking of War by the South. So far as he knew, he was quelling an insurrection and already had the authority to enforce the Constitution. But you are blaming the victim, since the South struck first.
The South committed rebellion and sedition by their violation of union under the Constitution. And a third of its population was enslaved. For you, that is no big deal. You don't see massive slavery as a "tyrannical government." That is a bit nearsighted. Your continued reluctance to face that issue is bad optics for you.
It's well documented Abe took over Sumter with aggression.
Abe himself said it was to collect taxes, but really it was to piss in some faces to create a war congress never would have approved. The biggest type of snake. Wanting the south to pay taxes to help pay for the lobbyists that got him elected.
The site for Sumter had been ceded by South Carolina in 1836, 24 years before Lincoln became President. It was a federal construction for the U.S. Army, which had several forts on that shore. How can Lincoln "take over" a fort that was federal to begin with? You are not making sense, or simply misunderstand the history of events.
Since the presence and plan for the Fort predated Lincoln, how was it then his plan to use it to collect taxes? When it hadn't even been completed at the outbreak of war?
https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html#:~:text=Lincoln%20declared%20war%20to%20collect,the%20revenue%20cannot%20be%20effectually
Ah, you've run out of argument. And you persist in talking about Lincoln, when he did not start the war.
Lincoln did not claim slavery was a reason even in his Emancipation Proclamations on Sept. 22, 1862, and Jan. 1, 1863. Moreover, Lincoln's proclamations exempted a million slaves under his control from being freed (including General U.S. Grant's four slaves) and offered the South three months to return to the Union (pay 40 percent sales tax) and keep their slaves. None did. Lincoln affirmed his only reason for issuing was: "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said (tax) rebellion."
Excerpt
You are barking up the wrong tree. I have never maintained that slavery was an issue to Lincoln, but it was THE issue for the South. And the war would NOT have occurred had the South not perceived the future term under Lincoln to be perilous to the continuation of slavery. You are arguing a point not at issue.
It was on April 8, 1861, that Lincoln, alone, started the war by a surprise attack on Charleston Harbor with a fleet of warships, led by the USS Harriet Lane, to occupy Fort Sumter, a Federal tax collection fort in the territorial waters of South Carolina and then invaded Virginia.
Excerpt
No, the South succeeded on 20 December 1860, demanded that Washington surrender the Fort (robbery), and commenced the bombardment on 12 April 1861 (act of war, or insurrection). The naval force was not intended to occupy Fort Sumter but to provision it with food and ammunition, as the troops there were running out of supplies. The Fort was already in federal hands...as it was from the beginning, a federal fort. I am at pains to understand how it is possible to invade Virginia from Charleston, South Carolina, when North Carolina is in the way.
The USRC Harriet Lane was a revenue cutter. The "fleet" retired after Major Robert Anderson surrendered the Fort on 13 April and evacuated to the ships.