lincoln

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

The south was the aggressor??the country of south carolina fired on ft.sumter after it fired at them for firing at a resuppy and reinforcment fleet illegally sailed into charleston harbor.the north invaded the country of virginia and was repulsed at the 1st battle of bull run.
the only examples of southern agression was antietam and the invasion of peensylvania which culminated with gettysburg.
the north attacked the south over and over again.
i knew i would be called a racist somehow and the dancing around comment proves it what better way to end a debate but throw in the race card
plllease

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

Yes, the South was the aggressor.

On 9 January 1861, the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West attempted to reach Fort Sumter. Batteries on Morris Island and the recently occupied Fort Moultrie opend fire on the ship and forced her to turn back. No shots were fired from Fort Sumter during this blatent attack on a United States vessel, since the commander of Fort Sumter was under orders to remain on the defensive.
At 4:30 a.m. on 12 April 1861, having demanded and been refused the surrender of Fort Sumter, Confederate general P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire on the fort, starting the war. Fort Sumter did not return fire until 7:00 a.m.


ckammp you are only confusing people with facts. Hitting them over the head with facts like the Suspension Clause and Star of the West only gives them headaches.[;)]

[rodney727]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

Ludicrous brainwashing. The war was prosecuted for "Manifest Destiny" dogma, not "ending slavery".

1) Is secession unconstitutional? I think so, but will conceed that the constitution is not explicit on the matter. 2) If secession is unconstitutional, who gets to decide that "the public safety may require" the suspension of the writ? 3) where is it OK to suspend the writ?
Anyone else care to take up the debate on these grounds?

1) No.
2) No one.
3) Nowhere.
4) Case closed.

Lol!!! Manifest destiny huh? Oh my still chuckling thank you I really needed that!

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: wodin

Just read this very interesting...



ý"What brought about the hanging of 38 Sioux Indians in Minnesota December 26, 1862 was the failure "again" of the U.S. Government to honor it's treaties with Indian Nations. Indians were not given the money or food set forth to them for signing a treaty to turn over more than a million acres of their land and be forced to live on a reservation.

Indian agents keep the treaty money and food that was to go to the Indians, the food was sold to White settlers, food that was given to the Indians was spoiled and not fit for a dog to eat. Indian hunting parties went off the reservation land looking for food to feed their families, one hunting group took eggs from a White settlers land and the rest is history.

Information below tells how President Lincoln and Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey set out to exterminate Indians from their home land.

Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota."

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

The web site you quoted seems to have somehow left out the fact that the "entirely" innocent Indians had, in a six-week period, brutally raped, murdered, and tortured between 450 and 800 white settlers. And contraryto what that web site claims, Lincoln was not at all concerned with any reaction from Europe; rather he carefully studied the list of accused Indians, and pardoned 264 whom he believed not guilty.

Well whatever happened what happened to the Native Americans on the whole can not be justified. I don't blame them for fighting back nor trying to attack the invader...also as in all wars rape and murder is committed by both sides..neither side can take a moral ground on that issue. Lets face it they weren't "white settlers" but white invaders..

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

Ludicrous brainwashing. The war was prosecuted for "Manifest Destiny" dogma, not "ending slavery".

1) Is secession unconstitutional? I think so, but will conceed that the constitution is not explicit on the matter. 2) If secession is unconstitutional, who gets to decide that "the public safety may require" the suspension of the writ? 3) where is it OK to suspend the writ?
Anyone else care to take up the debate on these grounds?

1) No.
2) No one.
3) Nowhere.
4) Case closed.

I am not sure how you can say that the suspension of habea corpus is never allowed. The constitution, in very plain language says it can be suspended in the event of rebellion. Sorry, but that is a fact.

Manifest destiny, never fully or consistently defined, had been spoken of for decades before the war. People really must study history carefully. Abraham Lincoln believed the imperialism of Manifest Destiny was both unjust and unreasonable.

[rodney727]

I challenge all those people on here who thought Lincoln was so bad. I kinda want them to live during the nazi era or under Stalin rule then have them come back and tell how their human rights were upheld. Please. It was war people. Everything Lincoln did was to save the union. He had the right to postpone the election of 1864...he did not. Dictator??? Come on!!! You people mock me with your ignorance.

ORIGINAL: wodin

Dresden was out of order..no need for it at all and a War Crime..but War Crimes are only crimes if you lose the war.

I think it's a pointer that maybe we shouldn't idolise these past leaders so much. Lincoln probably wasn't the great upholder of human rights, he probably was a racist as everyone else was back then, blimey it's only in recent years that racism wasn't the norm throughout society. Which brings us to the fact you can't judge people from the past with our own standard of ethics and morals.

[parusski]

neither side can take a moral ground on that issue. Lets face it they weren't "white settlers" but white invaders..

And there is the rub. There was near constant warfare among the native Indian tribes before white people arrived(and afterwards too). Again, we can't say anyone was pure. The Indians coveted the territories of enemy tribes as much as whites coveted the lands of all Indians.

[wodin]

Yes they fought each other...that makes no difference to the fact the white man came and took their lands and persecuted them. They still had far more right to the land than the white man no matter what the tribe..also Indian vs Indian = a level playing field that had gone on for thousands of years..Indian vs White man = slaughter.

If a brother and sister are arguing over who should have a certain toy that doesn't mean the kid down the street can come in and take it off them.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Yes they fought each other...that makes no difference to the fact the white man came and took their lands and persecuted them. They still had far more right to the land than the white man no matter what the tribe..also Indian vs Indian = a level playing field that had gone on for thousands of years..Indian vs White man = slaughter.

If a brother and sister are arguing over who should have a certain toy that doesn't mean the kid down the street can come in and take it off them.

Sure it does, if the kid down the street is powerful.[:D][;)]

[rodney727]

This kinda hits home.... The great Sioux uprising... Spirit lake Iowa . The Sioux took all the babies they could find and bashed them against the trees. Killed all the white men and kept a few white woman as slaves. Yes it was savage and no doubt that quarter was not offered on either side.

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: wodin

Just read this very interesting...



ý"What brought about the hanging of 38 Sioux Indians in Minnesota December 26, 1862 was the failure "again" of the U.S. Government to honor it's treaties with Indian Nations. Indians were not given the money or food set forth to them for signing a treaty to turn over more than a million acres of their land and be forced to live on a reservation.

Indian agents keep the treaty money and food that was to go to the Indians, the food was sold to White settlers, food that was given to the Indians was spoiled and not fit for a dog to eat. Indian hunting parties went off the reservation land looking for food to feed their families, one hunting group took eggs from a White settlers land and the rest is history.

Information below tells how President Lincoln and Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey set out to exterminate Indians from their home land.

Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota."

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

The web site you quoted seems to have somehow left out the fact that the "entirely" innocent Indians had, in a six-week period, brutally raped, murdered, and tortured between 450 and 800 white settlers. And contraryto what that web site claims, Lincoln was not at all concerned with any reaction from Europe; rather he carefully studied the list of accused Indians, and pardoned 264 whom he believed not guilty.

Well whatever happened what happened to the Native Americans on the whole can not be justified. I don't blame them for fighting back nor trying to attack the invader...also as in all wars rape and murder is committed by both sides..neither side can take a moral ground on that issue. Lets face it they weren't "white settlers" but white invaders..

[rodney727]

Wodin who do you think the Indians took the land from? Or do you think they just suddenly appeared there? Not sure you English study any history other than your own.[>:]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Yes they fought each other...that makes no difference to the fact the white man came and took their lands and persecuted them. They still had far more right to the land than the white man no matter what the tribe..also Indian vs Indian = a level playing field that had gone on for thousands of years..Indian vs White man = slaughter.

If a brother and sister are arguing over who should have a certain toy that doesn't mean the kid down the street can come in and take it off them.

[rodney727]

Way off topic!

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Just ask any plains tribe today about how they feel about the Sioux ....

ORIGINAL: parusski

neither side can take a moral ground on that issue. Lets face it they weren't "white settlers" but white invaders..

And there is the rub. There was near constant warfare among the native Indian tribes before white people arrived(and afterwards too). Again, we can't say anyone was pure. The Indians coveted the territories of enemy tribes as much as whites coveted the lands of all Indians.

Edited to cover my mistake.[:D]

Well, in the end we can't do a damned thing about it. A man can love America but be uncomfortable with it's past. I am sure citizens of England are uncomfortable with some actions taken during it's days of ruling the world. I am appalled by the treatment of native Americans, we should have offered better deals and HONORED all treaty's. We can't change the facts of what happened. We can only get on with life.

As to Sarge's remark about me clinging to the second amendment and approving of suspending habeas corpus I must again remind you that the constitution allows suspension of habeas corpus in the case of rebellion. The second amendment says Americans have the right to bear arms. There is a provision to deal with the problem of guns(as some see it) and that is to amend the constitution. Have your congressional delegation introduce a bill to do away with the second amendment as allowed in the constitution.

And when has being off topic stopped any of us.[:'(]

[Orm]

Wodin who do you think the Indians took the land from? Or do you think they just suddenly appeared there?

I am not sure I understand this. Could you elaborate?

[wodin]

Their ancestral genetic roots are from France...I do know that much...from the last Ice age..before that no humans lived there...so I know far more than you think. Which means they've been there for about 20,000 years..

For many years people believed they came from Siberia across a land mass..however tools and then DNA testing proved different.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Wodin who do you think the Indians took the land from? Or do you think they just suddenly appeared there?

I am not sure I understand this. Could you elaborate?

wodin and Orm, the fact is the American Indians took North America from the citizens of Atlantis. Just thought you 'foreigners' should know.[8D]

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Wodin who do you think the Indians took the land from? Or do you think they just suddenly appeared there? Not sure you English study any history other than your own.[>:]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Yes they fought each other...that makes no difference to the fact the white man came and took their lands and persecuted them. They still had far more right to the land than the white man no matter what the tribe..also Indian vs Indian = a level playing field that had gone on for thousands of years..Indian vs White man = slaughter.

If a brother and sister are arguing over who should have a certain toy that doesn't mean the kid down the street can come in and take it off them.

Hahaha..thats funny coming from an American...see my post above.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Wodin who do you think the Indians took the land from? Or do you think they just suddenly appeared there? Not sure you English study any history other than your own.[>:]

warspite1

In a thread like this - with such a contentious subject line - you can allow for some moronic statements. But that one is just about the winner so far...[8|][:-][:@][&:][:(][>:]

a) Because Wodin expressed a personal opinion (and he just happens to be English) - why the attack on the "You English"?? Totally uncalled for.

b) No we (that is we in the UK generally) do not study much in the way of history because our education system is £$%^&. And the same applies whether its UK or anyone else's history. However, our children do learn some (though its not compulsory to take the subject to GCSE).

c) Do you know what my eldest is learning in "history" at the moment? Yep, you guessed it - American Indians. %^&* me! Like we don't have any history of our own [8|].... You %^&* Americans; can't you keep your history to yourselves [>:]*







* And that was not an ironic comment in response to rogo's nonsense in case you hadn't worked it out.

[SLAAKMAN]

wodin
Dresden was out of order..no need for it at all and a War Crime..but War Crimes are only crimes if you lose the war.

I think it's a pointer that maybe we shouldn't idolise these past leaders so much. Lincoln probably wasn't the great upholder of human rights, he probably was a racist as everyone else was back then, blimey it's only in recent years that racism wasn't the norm throughout society. Which brings us to the fact you can't judge people from the past with our own standard of ethics and morals.

Truer words cannot be spoken! [X(]

I challenge all those people on here who thought Lincoln was so bad. I kinda want them to live during the nazi era or under Stalin rule then have them come back and tell how their human rights were upheld. Please. It was war people. Everything Lincoln did was to save the union. He had the right to postpone the election of 1864...he did not. Dictator??? Come on!!! You people mock me with your ignorance.

Are you suuuuuure you want me to disturb you?
Disturbingly Disturbed Vicar - Monty Python
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2GgcCsLGDQ

Lol!!! Manifest destiny huh? Oh my still chuckling thank you I really needed that!

This invalidates your mythos completely;
http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

My Lord parruski,

I am not sure how you can say that the suspension of habea corpus is never allowed. The constitution, in very plain language says it can be suspended in the event of rebellion. Sorry, but that is a fact.

Manifest destiny, never fully or consistently defined, had been spoken of for decades before the war. People really must study history carefully. Abraham Lincoln believed the imperialism of Manifest Destiny was both unjust and unreasonable.

As I stated before in the Realm of Slaakery, Habeus Corpus & Due Process are never justifiably violated. If Lincoln opposed Manifest Destiny then why would he call out Federal troops to prevent the severing of the Evil Empire? What right did Lincoln have to support the theft of Sioux or Cherokee land in the first place? How would you take it if the UN came along & booted you out of your house & told you go live in the friggin desert (except for Arizona where theres an abundance of gold or Nevada where there was an abundance of silver)??

In conclusion, Lincoln was a dupe who, along with multitudes of other dupes throughout history (like Roosevelt that commie traitor) should never be idolized. Now I must return to battle since Lincoln has already cut into my gaming time.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Dresden was out of order..no need for it at all and a War Crime..

warspite1

Nope.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Wodin who do you think the Indians took the land from? Or do you think they just suddenly appeared there? Not sure you English study any history other than your own.[>:]

warspite1

In a thread like this - with such a contentious subject line - you can allow for some moronic statements. But that one is just about the winner so far...[8|][:-][:@][&:][:(][>:]

a) Because Wodin expressed a personal opinion (and he just happens to be English) - why the attack on the "You English"?? Totally uncalled for.

b) No we (that is we in the UK generally) do not study much in the way of history because our education system is £$%^&. And the same applies whether its UK or anyone else's history. However, our children do learn some (though its not compulsory to take the subject to GCSE).

c) Do you know what my eldest is learning in "history" at the moment? Yep, you guessed it - American Indians. %^&* me! Like we don't have any history of our own [8|].... You %^&* Americans; can't you keep your history to yourselves [>:]*







* And that was not an ironic comment in response to rogo's nonsense in case you hadn't worked it out.

thanks Mr Warspite..