re: Abraham Lincoln radically changed the nature of the Civil War on this day 161 years ago

quote:

---

I like hearing the truth and Lincoln launched a war to stop southern seccession which was gauranteed by the 10th amendment. The constitution is quite on the issue so the states are relegated the power, Lincoln was a tyrant. Sorry to break it to you union just causers.

---

I would love to hear your constitutional law analysis on how the 10th amendment guaranteed secession.
I would also love to hear who taught you how to spell the words "secession" and "guaranteed".

quote:

---

10th amendment guaranteed secession. I would also love to hear who taught you how to spell the words "secession" and "guaranteed

---

Well kinda hard to type when your driving on a deserted long stretch of highway, as far as gaurateeing the right of secession its a lot stronger than the weak Texas ruling that supposedly ruled seccession unlawful in 69. The tenth CLEARLY defines it. Theres a reason no confederates were tried for treason, Jeff Davis practicaly begged for it. The Union was advised against it.

quote:

---

The 1860 Census is a beautiful thing.

---

so show the information... because "Something like" isnt very confident.

quote:

---

Lincoln had no authority to free the slaves in the CSA. It was all just smoke and mirrors.

---

And yet slaves who wandered into Union lines in the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation were not returned to their owners.

quote:

---

And yet slaves who wandered into Union lines in the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation were not returned to their owners.

---

Nope, they were handed a gun and told turn around and go fight.

quote:

---

so show the information... because "Something like" isnt very confident.

---

If you were truly interested, you would look it up yourself.

Abe Lincoln was a homo.

I prefer countries that didn’t lose civil wars.

quote:

---

And yet slaves who wandered into Union lines in the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation were not returned to their owners.

---

Which I'm sure was done for completely empathetic reasons. That isn't even the point that I would argue. The point I argue is that the Emancipation Proclamation was just window dressing. It did not do a damn thing, it did not free a single slave. It was a purely political stunt. If it wasn't, and it was done with the purest of intentions, well then Lincoln would have freed every slave. North, South, Border States. But, he didn't. He isn't the hero he is made out to be.

quote:

---

At this point in history it was considered very poor form, Lee refused to do this saying he will not fighy anyone that doesnt take up arms against him. Union officers even remarked about how little damage southern armies did to private property while in the north. The South on the way to Gettysburg could have literally burned up the east coast. One side commited war crimes and it was almost exlusively the union.

---

These were his orders:

quote:

---

IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten days' provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock in sight of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be intrusted the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.

VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms...

---

How are his armies strayed from these orders, I don't know.

And Robert E. Lee, whether he would have or not, had have known that if he did go after Northern infrastructure and property, then invading Northen armies thereafter would follow suit. I'm guessing he would not risk it especially since he wanted local support.