Wake up America. The War of Northern Aggression

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The Declaration of Independence ~ Paragraph two ~ 1st sentence ~
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Is this going somewhere?

I already addressed the difference between the American Revolution and the Illegal Southern Rebellion.

[Rebel]

The Declaration of Independence ~ Paragraph two ~ 1st sentence ~
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Is this going somewhere?

I already addressed the difference between the American Revolution and the Illegal Southern Rebellion.

So, you think the Declaration of Independence became obsolete after the revolutionary war? I guess all those big words were just double talk meant to confuse the Brits?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The Declaration of Independence ~ Paragraph two ~ 1st sentence ~
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Is this going somewhere?

I already addressed the difference between the American Revolution and the Illegal Southern Rebellion.

So, you think the Declaration of Independence became obsolete after the revolutionary war? I guess all those big words were just double talk meant to confuse the Brits?

Where did I say that?

[Rebel]

The Declaration of Independence ~ Paragraph two ~ 1st sentence ~
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Is this going somewhere?

I already addressed the difference between the American Revolution and the Illegal Southern Rebellion.

So, you think the Declaration of Independence became obsolete after the revolutionary war? I guess all those big words were just double talk meant to confuse the Brits?

Where did I say that?

Says right there in the Declaration of Independence that the people can decide on the government they want representing them. How about:

The Bill of Rights ~ The Tenth Amendment ~ U.S. Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now, since it wasn't explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, can you tell me how secession was illegal? This is exactly what this nation was founded on. BTW, you can't bring up what Madison said all you want. Last time I checked, we were never ruled by a dictator, nor did we have a Chief Justice on a One-Member Supreme Court. I.e. there was nothing in the founding documents that prevented secession and when the case was going to be made, it was squashed by the Union...after the Civil War. Gee, wonder why that is? Maybe because it would have shown that the North invaded a sovereign nation?

[Rebel Yell]

Y'all can snivel all you want but the declarations of secession say the southern states seceded over slavery because those wretched abolitionists were preaching about it in church and printing newspaper articles.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm

*GASP!*

How dare those terrible nti-slavery people use their 1 amendment rights to constitutionally overturn slavery through legislative redress!!!

Be proud of your supposed southern heroes (even I have a soft spot for Lee and Jackson); I'm sure their are Japs alive today that are proud of their grnadparents. However, this notion that the vanquished are entitled to their flags or that the war was a clarion call against bloated government is fallacious (see links above) and James Madison, who might just know a thing or two about the intent if the constitution notes that secession is not an explicit or implicit right:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html

Spare me the theories and romanticizing.

BTW - Thomas DiLorenzo is a Lew Rockwell-posting hack who refers to those he disagrees with as "neocons" and cites The Disquisition of Government as a seminal work on the basis of government...despite the fact it lays its moral foundation on white supremacy based on white civilization's invention of steam power and and guns in resisting the rebuffs of non-white societies.

Do tell, what hack wrote this....

"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Lincoln proposed this 13th amendment in March 1861.  The first shots of the civil war wasn't fired until April 9, 1861.  If secession was about slavery, why go to war.  Secession was about money, plain and simple.  The South was already paying around 75% of the taxes, most of which were used to finance Northern infrastructure.  But that wasn't enough, Lincoln wanted to add an additional 40% tariff.  The same type of act that got a bunch of tea dumped into the Boston Harbor, but you don't hear that called treason.  That's because we won the Revolution.  If we had lost, you'd be sitting here eating crumpets bitching about those traitors to the crown.

[Rebel Yell]

And I guess this guy is a white supremecist, too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don’t Furl the Flag
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by W. Earl Douglas

Alas, it has also brought heartburn to this black writer, who cannot buy the socialist philosophy of the Garrisons and Sumners of yesterday or today, and would rather wave a Confederate battle flag as a symbol of striving for independence than a food stamp or welfare check, which symbolize the hell of defeat more pronounced than that received in any war. 

I cannot be convinced that Southern independence meant only the perpetuation of slavery, because history of the truthful kind tells me otherwise. The Constitution of the Provisional Government of the Confederacy forbade the importation of slaves. How then was slavery the motivating force behind the thrust for Southern independence? How did black and white slave owners exist side by side in this region, which was painted by abolitionists as one of black and white hostility? Why were there always more free Negroes in the slave South than in the so-called free North of the abolitionists? Such questions remain unanswered . . . Whites and blacks were partners in the destiny of the South and not (as the Uncle Tom’s Cabin mentality of the abolitionists would have had us believe) only as master and slave. 

Today over a century since that much heralded emancipation, it is here in the land of the unfurled Confederate battle flag where Negro progress stands above that achieved in any other region of the country. For it is here, in the heartland of the old Confederacy, where over 70 percent of all black-owned housing is to be found and where this nation’s only viable black economic middle class exists—the Southern black farmer. 

. . . The real tragedy of the Confederate battle flag is that Southerners, white and black, have permitted it to be driven between them like a wedge, separating them from a common goal. The racism so evident in this controversy is not the flying of the flag but that we’ve permitted it to be designated as pro-white and anti-black. I am reminded that it was my grandfather and grandmother who kept the home fires burning while the Confederacy waged its war. Which is why I cannot view loyalty to the South or the desire for independence as being monopolized by either race. 

. . . If hate had been the prevailing emotion between the races, then it is a safe bet that the Confederacy never would have been born. Fortunately, there was love, understanding and compassion. And the two greatest lies ever perpetrated by history [are] that the South instigated the war and that it was fought by the North for the purpose of freeing slaves. The Negro was merely used as the excuse for that war, while the real reason for it is reflected in every area of our lives, where the tentacles of government form the bars of a new slavery. 

No! Don’t furl that Confederate battle flag. Let it wave all across the South to remind Americans that there exists here a yearning for liberty, freedom and independence that will not be denied. Let it fly as a testimonial to real men and real women who would rather work and fight than shed tears and beg for government charity. Finally, let it act as a cohesive force, drawing all Southerners together in the cause of freedom.” 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Rebel,

The only the government was becoming destructive to was the institution of slavery, as attested to by the southern declarations of secession, so your citiation of the DoI depends on whether or not one views the destruction of slavery. The DoI is not a willy-nilly call to anarchy. Consider:

* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?

* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?

* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?

Also, as Madison so richly pointed out that your interpretation of the 10th Amendment is obviously overbroad. The 10th refers to legislative matters; not the power to come and go at whim. For example, healthcare is not a constitutional mandate so congress would be outside its delegated powers but if an indiviual state decided to enact socialized medicine it is their perogative. That is all the 10th is about, nothing more, nothing less.

If secession was about slavery, why go to war.  Secession was about money, plain and simple.  The South was already paying around 75% of the taxes, most of which were used to finance Northern infrastructure.  But that wasn't enough, Lincoln wanted to add an additional 40% tariff.  The same type of act that got a bunch of tea dumped into the Boston Harbor, but you don't hear that called treason.  That's because we won the Revolution.  If we had lost, you'd be sitting here eating crumpets bitching about those traitors to the crown.

Who are you going to believe: some brainless quasi-racist hack who posts at Lew Rockwell or the ACTUAL AUTHORS of the declarations of secession?

So Lincoln offered mollify the south with the 13th Amend. and the CSA refused; Lincoln also proposed to his cabinet tht the Union buy the slaves at $400/head to assuage the south and end the war...very slave-centered and non-agressive.

Hm-m-m...

[Rebel]

Rebel,

The only the government was becoming destructive to was the institution of slavery, as attested to by the southern declarations of secession, so your citiation of the DoI depends on whether or not one views the destruction of slavery. The DoI is not a willy-nilly call to anarchy. Consider:

* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?

* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?

* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?

Also, as Madison so richly pointed out that your interpretation of the 10th Amendment is obviously overbroad. The 10th refers to legislative matters; not the power to come and go at whim. For example, healthcare is not a constitutional mandate so congress would be outside its delegated powers but if an indiviual state decided to enact socialized medicine it is their perogative. That is all the 10th is about, nothing more, nothing less.

Really? Maybe you can answer why this:

C.S.A. Constitution

SECTION 9. 

1. The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Was entered into the CSA Constitution. You know, since slavery was so damned important to the secession as you so erroneously put it.

Slavery was legal in northern states as well as southern states so, kinda blows your argument out of the water. Shall I tell you the northern slave-holding states? Or are you already aware of them? I'm not a DUmmie, Snugs, I work on fact. Not revisionist history.

Your bullets mean nothing because it essentially IS comparing apples to oranges. You're speaking of individuals. In the case of the secession, it's referring to people, represented by elected state governments in a time where state's rights were the primary concern of the Union. Madison, while having issues with Hamilton, was essentially just like him. A strong federal government guy. Jefferson's points were why this country was founded, and that is state's rights, with a weak federal government.

It's funny to me, really, how anyone can call themselves a "conservative" and fawn over Madison, who was more like a Democrat of today.

[Chris_]

Rebel,

The only the government was becoming destructive to was the institution of slavery, as attested to by the southern declarations of secession, so your citiation of the DoI depends on whether or not one views the destruction of slavery. The DoI is not a willy-nilly call to anarchy. Consider:

* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?

* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?

* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?

Also, as Madison so richly pointed out that your interpretation of the 10th Amendment is obviously overbroad. The 10th refers to legislative matters; not the power to come and go at whim. For example, healthcare is not a constitutional mandate so congress would be outside its delegated powers but if an indiviual state decided to enact socialized medicine it is their perogative. That is all the 10th is about, nothing more, nothing less.

Really? Maybe you can answer why this:

C.S.A. Constitution

SECTION 9. 

1. The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Was entered into the CSA Constitution. You know, since slavery was so damned important to the secession as you so erroneously put it.

Slavery was legal in northern states as well as southern states so, kinda blows your argument out of the water. Shall I tell you the northern slave-holding states? Or are you already aware of them? I'm not a DUmmie, Snugs, I work on fact. Not revisionist history.

Your bullets mean nothing because it essentially IS comparing apples to oranges. You're speaking of individuals. In the case of the secession, it's referring to people, represented by elected state governments in a time where state's rights were the primary concern of the Union. Madison, while having issues with Hamilton, was essentially just like him. A strong federal government guy. Jefferson's points were why this country was founded, and that is state's rights, with a weak federal government.

It's funny to me, really, how anyone can call themselves a "conservative" and fawn over Madison, who was more like a Democrat of today.

That isn't a repudiation of slavery. It just establishes a closed system.  It doesn't say "there will be no slaves."  It says "there will be no NEW Slaves FROM AFRICA."

You need to read for both content and comprehension.

[Rebel]

That isn't a repudiation of slavery. It just establishes a closed system.  It doesn't say "there will be no slaves."  It says "there will be no NEW Slaves FROM AFRICA."

You need to read for both content and comprehension.

...but, even though Snugs contended that the war wasn't about slavery, he came back to the point and seemed to make it a case for the war. I have already stated that there were 2, well, actually 3 slave-holding Northern states when the war started. Now, your point?

[Chris_]

That isn't a repudiation of slavery. It just establishes a closed system.  It doesn't say "there will be no slaves."  It says "there will be no NEW Slaves FROM AFRICA."

You need to read for both content and comprehension.

...but, even though Snugs contended that the war wasn't about slavery, he came back to the point and seemed to make it a case for the war. I have already stated that there were 2, well, actually 3 slave-holding Northern states when the war started. Now, your point?

That slavery was not OUT of scope in the reasoning for the Southern Insurrection.

[Rebel]

That slavery was not OUT of scope in the reasoning for the Southern Insurrection.

Insurrection? Show me the constitutional provision prohibiting secession. Not some bullshit written afterwards, something that was on paper BEFORE. As for slavery, do you think it was the reason the North invaded?


I'll await your response.

[Chris_]

That slavery was not OUT of scope in the reasoning for the Southern Insurrection.

Insurrection? Show me the constitutional provision prohibiting secession. Not some bullshit written afterwards, something that was on paper BEFORE. As for slavery, do you think it was the reason the North invaded?


I'll await your response.

ARTICLE III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Thanks for waiting.

[Rebel]

ARTICLE III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Thanks for waiting.

I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.

[Chris_]

ARTICLE III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Thanks for waiting.

I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.

Its attempt to divorce itself fro the Law of the Land was a clear declaration of war. Treason is as treason does.

[Rebel]

ARTICLE III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Thanks for waiting.

I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.

Its attempt to divorce itself fro the Law of the Land was a clear declaration of war. Treason is as treason does.

Law of the land? Show me IN that law where secession, which this country was founded on, was illegal. So far, you're doing a pretty poor job.

[Chris_]

ARTICLE III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Thanks for waiting.

I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.

Its attempt to divorce itself fro the Law of the Land was a clear declaration of war. Treason is as treason does.

Law of the land? Show me IN that law where secession, which this country was founded on, was illegal. So far, you're doing a pretty poor job.

You are inventing rights where none exist.  And none existed.  As S.Bunny pointed out, you don't get to invent new States rights from the 10th Amendment just because you don't like the deal you (as a State) signed up for.  The Supremacy Clause clearly says the USC is the Law of the Land and applies to ALL States and People:

Article VI Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

How much clearer can it be?  It says all States shall be bound by the USC they attached themselves to.

[djones520]

ARTICLE III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Thanks for waiting.

I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.

To levy war.  To impose war.

The CSA attacked the United States of America.  They used force to overrun military bases established by the Federal Government.  Soldiers of the United States Military where killed in an act of aggression all across the CSA.  How is that not an act of war?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

That isn't a repudiation of slavery. It just establishes a closed system.  It doesn't say "there will be no slaves."  It says "there will be no NEW Slaves FROM AFRICA."

You need to read for both content and comprehension.

...but, even though Snugs contended that the war wasn't about slavery, he came back to the point and seemed to make it a case for the war. I have already stated that there were 2, well, actually 3 slave-holding Northern states when the war started. Now, your point?

Want me to post the declarations of secession?

I've provided the links, you obviously remain ignorant of their content because if you did read them there is no way you could make such claims.

I also like how you keep ignoring:

* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?

* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?

* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?

I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.

freedumb and djones answered well.

Consider also: Thomas Jefferson (most beloved president of all pseudo-secessionists) and his congress considered the sawing down of a flagpole at an embassy to be a declaration of war (First Barbary War).

So your point of invasion with the intent to conquer as the sole grounds for establishing a state of war is grossly unfounded.

[Rebel Yell]

* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?

If the Marxists were here first, then yes.  Strictly going by the DoI, we had no right to revolt against England.

* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?

Hell, I'm not even allowed to build a shelter in my own back yard without gettnig a permit from the government/paying a pennance to the current throne.  If the people had done it they would have been well within their rights.  People actually had property rights before Lincoln formed his federal super government.

* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?

If they couldn't get the relief through the legislature, then yes.



Now answer my question.  Why does everyone blindly overlook the fact that:

A.  The South was fed up with footing the vast majority of the bill (taxes) and getting little benefit.  Southern tax dollars were going to build the northen infrastructure.

B.  After the war Lincoln allowed hid top General (and future President) to keep his slaves.

Face it the Republican Party of the 1860's were the equivalent of today's Democrats.  BIG Government, more taxes, less individual rights.

[asdf2231]

ARTICLE III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Thanks for waiting.

I'm sorry, did the South declare war on Washington that I'm not aware of? The South never tried to take over the North. Next point.

Well there was that whole shelling Federal troops at fort Sumpter but that may have in fact been over a late milk delivery payment.

[Rebel]

Well there was that whole shelling Federal troops at fort Sumpter but that may have in fact been over a late milk delivery payment.

They were ordered to vacate the premises. That land, just as most other military installations, was only leased to the federal government.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Civil War, Civil War....hmmmm....let's see.....who won that?...hmmm....it's on the tip of my tongue....

 

Are you sure about the lease thing, there, Reb?  Federal property generally is ceded back to the Feds by statutes (normally uncodified ones like session laws) in most states, and I don't believe gunfire is a normal means of eviction even when a lessee is actually in arrears.

I like the way one South Carolinian I know put it last week when I was touring Fort Pulaski:  "Well, dang, we were from SOUTH CAROLINA, y'all shoulda KNOWN better than to follow OUR lead!" 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

* If Marxists decide our system is destructive to their ends does the DoI grant them license to take up arms against the US?

If the Marxists were here first, then yes.  Strictly going by the DoI, we had no right to revolt against England.

wha--?!?!

That's not even coherent.

* Were loyal Unionists in southern states allowed to take up arms to keep those portions of land they occupied a part of the Union and thus carve-up the CSA to their desires?

Hell, I'm not even allowed to build a shelter in my own back yard without gettnig a permit from the government/paying a pennance to the current throne.  If the people had done it they would have been well within their rights.  People actually had property rights before Lincoln formed his federal super government.

Local building permits come from local government, not the feds.

* When Jim Crowe was passed should blacks have taken up arms or should they have sought legislative and judicial relief?

If they couldn't get the relief through the legislature, then yes.

You claim--quite falsely--that the south rebelled over taxes.

Taxes can be relieved legislatively. It wasn't until JFK that the taxes of FDR were reduced, yet in the intervening

Now answer my question.  Why does everyone blindly overlook the fact that:

A.  The South was fed up with footing the vast majority of the bill (taxes) and getting little benefit.  Southern tax dollars were going to build the northen infrastructure.

No one has overlooked anything except blatant falsehoods.

Accordiong to the Declarations of Secession which were actually written by the actual traitors to justify their actual treason (and not some hack historian):

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

B.  After the war Lincoln allowed hid top General (and future President) to keep his slaves.

Who were freed at abolition which took its natural legislative course once the unlawful rebellion was put down.

They were ordered to vacate the premises. That land, just as most other military installations, was only leased to the federal government.

Gitmo is leased from the Cubans. Castro's not allowed to order us off his island.

[formerlurker]

Russian ships docked in our East and West Coast ports waiting patiently for their prey -- which would be the collapse of the Union.

It never happened, but we were so dangerously close to losing everything. 

Revisionism in History is common and disturbing.