วีดีโอ

@mencken8 The U.S. didn't switch to a fiat currency until 1971, ironically during the Nixon Administration. The federal government grew some during the Civil War, but nowhere near the size of the modern bureaucracy. True growth of the federal bureaucracy didn't REALLY begin until the 20th Century with the Progressive Era, FDR's New Deal, and LBJ's Great Society - and our government is relatively small compared to most of our industrialized peers. As far as the "ex parte" Milligan thing the Supreme Court ruled against the Lincoln Administration - so the precedent was actually set against military tribunals trying civilians - death is the punishment for treason though so the traitors in question might have received the same sentence in a civil court.

The movie is "Lincoln" (2012). Not sure if there's a name to the scene.

The north hardly had any. They had long since adopted the policy of gradual emancipation and outright abolition.

That Lincoln could have let an old lady get away with murder rings true, for both judge and jury would have regarded his action as equitable, as themselves being overruled by a higher court, or as the old lady having been pardoned by executive action.

That wasn't dubious at all. It was flat out illegal by British law but then illegal isn't the same thing as unjust

​@@ProjectEkerTest33eloquently said.

The parties have essentially switched places starting with the New Deal and finally culminating in the 60s with Nixon's election. The Republican party has now ironically become the party of most of the original Confederacy.

th-cam.com/video/IgEsUhHN3iQ/w-d-xo.html

Regardless as to which alternate topic you choose to delegate blame for the war, it is always a thin sheen for the ultimate cause: slavery. Why was Western expansion even a controversial issue? Because of the balance of slave and free states. Why was states rights a concern of Southern states in this particular instance and not others? Slavery. What economic differences between the North and South led to the war? One economy saw owning people as livestock as an economic system. You can try to run from it as much as you like, but the simple fact remains: the issue at the core of the war was slavery. But don't take my word for it: the Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens stated as much: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

In this clip Lincoln also mentions that the constitution gives him "War Powers" which are ill-defined so things like suspending habeus corpus and the like could conceivably fall under that. Consider also Lincoln was not unique among his predecessors in circumventing the Constitution. The most egregious one that comes to mind is Andrew Jackson; he ignored a Supreme Court ruling designating the Cherokee as being their own nation and instead marched them together with several other tribes to Oklahoma. Thomas Jefferson's Luisiana Purchase was also unconstitutional. John Adams imprisoned 25 newspaper editors for criticizing him. And while the following is NOT unconstitutional George Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion by force - he even led the troops personally - the first and last time any Commander in Chief has ever done that. So since our earliest days, to paraphrase Pirates of the Caribbean, the Constitution be more like guidelines. Ironically, the war began because the South objected to the outcome of a free and fair election. Lincoln's victory was so unpalatable to them they decided to commit treason peacefully at first but then by firing on Fort Sumpter. I really can't think of anything more unconstitutional. If a democracy can't put down a rebellion and must sit idle while it disintegrates there really isn't any point to it existing. It certainly isn't a viable form of government. In the end, the South was treated rather lightly. The punishment for treason is death, so the fact that not even the top officials and generals of the Confederacy even faced jail time demonstrates a considerable degree of mercy - particularly given what they put the country through. As far as history after 1865 goes, you paint with quite a broad brush. WWII benefitted the U.S. greatly economically and I doubt Western Europe or the Far East begrudged our involvement. The First Gulf War was certainly welcomed by the Arab Gulf nations. The Empire we established after WWII had its flaws to be sure (most notably Vietnam, CIA-interventions, and Iraq) but it has also created an era of unprecedented world prosperity and stability. Even today our bases around the world, are welcomed far more than they are loathed. Japan and South Korea are certainly glad we're there and despite our troubled histories Vietnam and the Phillipines are both eager to be our allies against China.

​@@adamwallenfangI sorry slavery was not illegal, it was the law of the US and obviously not immoral as can be seen by the behavior of the majority of the world at that time. Particularly, when you look at the Muslim nations, and African nations. What about Spain and Portugal, Latin America, particularly Brazil had loads of African slaves, far more than was ever brought to the US. Why do you hold Southern Whites to a higher moral standard than the rest of the world and the Northern states. The Northern states are not innocent children of God and were quite willing for slavery to exist in the South as long as they benefitted from it and the South stayed in the US. The Northern business interest did not want slavery to expand not for moral reasons but so they could control the territories for their own business interests. The South was entitled to its share of the Western territories, it provided the men and tax dollars to win the Mexican War. Let's not forget that in Lincoln inaugural speech pretty much guaranteed that slavery would not be touch. On repeated occasion Lincoln said that the Black were inferior to Whites. In fact Lincoln proposed colonizing Blacks back to Africa. So don't give me this high and mighty BS of the moral supremacy of Lincoln , the North, and the Union cause, which is also a myth. It was done as much for money as the South cause was for money. As far as slavery being the only cause, hardly with independence would have brought about an end to the export tariffs that benefitted the North at the expense of the South. It would mean that the South could sell it agricultural products directly to foreign markets and gain a larger profit. It would mean that the individual states would have more power at the expense of the Confederate government. It would also mean that at some point, the Confederate government could raise an army and try to lay claim to their share of the Western territories. I sorry if you can't or won't see all the advantages that independence would bring for the South. I mean if there is no benefit to independence why did we fight the British in the Revolution, over what taxation, which means money. It is amazing how gullible your kind is. At least the Southerners were fighting in their homeland, people like you support governments that invade and destroy and take from a people in their homeland. You hide your tyranny behind the veneer of liberty and all you impose is tyranny because you are immorally gullible. What have you gained by your tyranny? You have an ungrateful population that feel entitled to milk your guilt. They are 35+% of the prison population but only 13% of the population. Based on their percentage of the crimes committed for all ages group of all crimes in this country. They commit 26.6%. of total crimes, 51.2% of all murders, 26.7% of all rapes, 52.7% of all robberies. These numbers are for 2019 by the FBI nationwide and the numbers continue that way through all the offenses but about 4 types of offenses that are below 20%, which is still higher than their percentage in the population. Have you looked at the major cities crime, Chicago, Baltimore, LA, New York, the list is endless? Just take Chicago over the last 22 years, 12,500+ Blacks were killed mostly by Blacks, what is your excuse? In the South, since the end of the Civil War to the present day, that is over 150 years, about 6,000 to 7,000 Blacks were killed, supposedly by Klan violence. Why are your government policies that you support, creating such a Black genocide? It looks like that Blacks would be safer if the KKK ran the major cities. Obviously you and your Leftist and Democratic party don't give a shit about Blacks except as a voting block and welfare junkies addicted to government handouts. At least during slavery they were valued. As far as Alexander Stephens opinion of Blacks, again I don't understand your problem, Lincoln's opinion coincides with Stephen, what is the problem? Obviously Lincoln and Stephens both thought that Blacks were inferior, so what's the problem. Also obviously Blacks either cannot or will not live up to the expectations of law abiding citizens. Why? Now what you must understand I try not to judge a person by the color of their skin as much as possible, but data is data, facts are facts. And sometimes we have to live with uncomfortable truths. I have lived all my life in NC as my ancestors did for the last 300 years. My ancestors were frontiersmen, and farmers. The poor unlucky ones that owned no property had to do sharecropping, and tenant farming, or hire out to the local plantation owner as field hands. All these people worked out in the same sun and same heat and doing the same work as the slaves. In farming, when you are out in the field there is not White Privilege. I myself, for most of my time in school I went to integrated schools. I went to college from 1984 to 1988 at NCA&T State University in Greensboro NC, which is a historically Black university. In almost every class I attended their I was the only White person in the class. In one of my classes, Jesse Jackson Jr., Jonathan Jackson, the son of Jesse Jackson the Civil Rights leader. For all my working life, in most situations, every 3rd person I worked with was Black. I have had Blacks that I considered friends. So the information I state is not out of malice but from the data available and the behavior exhibit. So from my objective perspective, I don't know why you are so proud of the sacrifice of 600,000 to 700,000 White men supposedly according to you, fighting over slavery. If so it was a waste of those men lives for a people that are not capable of taking advantage of the opportunities that have been given to them or appreciate the sacrifice made for something their brothers and sisters in mother Africa caused. Me, I know better, the Northern business interests and Lincoln's people did it for money and power. The "Union" and slavery was just the excuse. Which means people like you are what Lenin called "Useful Idiots". Has slavery ended in Africa yet? If not what are you willing to do?

@ambrosephill9 Well, you've expanded this to other issues, but I'll try to be concise here. My primary point was simply that the central issue at the heart of the War was slavery and you haven't actually offered anything to counter that. Consider, for instance, your primary argument that the war was about the North wanting money and power. Why would a devastating and costly war with the Southern states serve that purpose? Why not just do business with them? I also never actually used the term "moral" - it was part of Stephens' speech where he states pretty plainly that the primary purpose of the Confederacy was slavery. I also didn't make a case for Lincoln's canonization or the moral purity of the North - indeed, even the movie makes the point that prejudice against black people was just as prevalent in the North (clip included below). However, I WILL point out that Lincoln's final speech (the one that ultimately got him killed) advanced the possibility of educated black men being allowed to vote. You are correct, however, that Lincoln originally said he would not interfere with slavery where it currently existed, but he was adamantly against its expansion West. His original assumption was that this would cause the institution to gradually (and perhaps peacefully) die out on its own. Instead, the South chose war because of his election. With regard to your crime statistics, I'll just say I think the issue is slightly more complex than a simple reading of the data would allow. Also, the war dead figure you cite includes 40,000 black soldiers. Frankly, this chunk of your argument came across as support for white supremacy, despite your protestation to the contrary. Finally, at no point did I suggest slavery was a uniquely American institution or that it was extinct. Frankly, I am surprised there are still apologists for the Confederacy left in the 21st Century. It only lasted 5 years and has been in the dust bin of history for a century and a half. It is lost, and the world (Southern states included) is better for its defeat. The resulting American Empire, you impugn is largely responsible for us being able to have this electronic conversation. th-cam.com/video/eyGRm1tulA0/w-d-xo.html

Lincoln (2012) by Steven Spielberg with Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln th-cam.com/video/KJVuqYkI2jQ/w-d-xo.html

Really higher goals, have you seen the crime statistics in our major cities and who is committing them?

​@ambrosephill9 You seem to be implying that abolishing slavery was a bad thing. Besides being an extremely minority position in the 21st Century it's also an inadvertent admission that the war was indeed about slavery.

The movie character is quite different from the reality. The real man was a horrible person and president. Maybe even worse than Millard Filmore.

@@adamwallenfang I don't really care if people think that the war was over slavery. It does not matter. Slavery was legal. The North never boycotted any of the crops produced in the South. The North just seemed to love Southern cotton, rice, sugar, tobacco, alcohol, indigo, etc...... If they had a problem with slavery. They should have boycott the South. In fact if the North had that much of a problem over slavery the should have kick the South out of the Union. That would have solved the problem.

@@Mattribute Thank you for giving us such a fine example of confirmation bias in action

It makes a lot of sense to pass the amendment with the southerners not at the table in Congress and begin reconstruction with a 'clean slate' and with the issue of slavery done and settled.

Did you watch this scene? Watch it, again if necessary. It's absolutely stated in several ways throughout this scene that the 13th A has to happen before the war ends, such where he and others in the room explain that the EP was a war measure and won't stand up after the war is over, so the 13th A is needed before that happens. It's also stated again where holds up a pen and says he wants to sign the 13th A on February 1st (in 1865, in other words, before the war ends). It's what the entire scene was about.