http://www.southafrica.info/about/geography/provinces.htm#.VhfEKkbtrYg
Most countries have provinces/states.
The term Civil War is a product of the North defining what the war was for the benefit of garnering support from the northern states. Defining the conflict as a rebellion, which is what it was not, made the discussion between the northern states and the federal government. The South did not attempt to overthrow the federal government to institute their own/a new government under one union of states.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebellion
By the way I think Patrick Henry's response to Lincoln and the war to his fellow southerners would have been "I told you so".
Yep. And, the other authors of the Anti-federalist Papers.
LOL...the inconsistency is too much.
Everyone believed SC didn't start the war at the time, yet clearly SC started the war.
I Mis characterized Lincoln because of England's banning slave trade in the 1800's (yet England banned slavery in England in late 1600's), the logical disconnect on that one is hilarious.
What about slavery in other countries and slavery of whites?Yes it is.
The constitution is horrible, yet should be supported when it allows slavery to continue via secession. Governments are generally bad, unless it is a pro-slavery State government seceding from what they believed (erroneously) to be a pro-abolition federal government.
What is more important to you SVG, individual rights that naturally prohibit slavery, or the "right" of some States to disassociate from the federal government?
I've already provided quotes from Southern Secessionists who declined the "honor" of firing the first shots at Fort Sumter because they didn't want to start the war.
I'll take a citation on your repeated claim that England banned slavery in England in the late 1600s. Everything I've found says England banned slavery in England in the 1800s. But don't let basic historic facts get in the way of your narrative.
Charles
What about slavery in other countries and slavery of whites?
What about the current slavery that is being imposed by our federal government? What about the same slavery that Lincoln tried to impose in 1861 which was of course ruled to be unconstitutional. Then in 1916 it was reinstated under false pretenses despite being ruled upon by the USSC as not having changed as shown in the BRUSHABER case.
So your contention that slavery is wrong and bad so long as you can change the name to suit your sensibilities?
So why are you defending slavery while none of the rest of us are in this discussion?
Lincoln was no federalist. If he were a federalist he would've adhered to the principles of federalism, which he did not.
I would like to read that, do you have a citation URL, please?
What about slavery in other countries and slavery of whites?
What about the current slavery that is being imposed by our federal government? What about the same slavery that Lincoln tried to impose in 1861 which was of course ruled to be unconstitutional. Then in 1916 it was reinstated under false pretenses despite being ruled upon by the USSC as not having changed as shown in the BRUSHABER case.
Contrary to apologist opinion very on topic.
In spite of the request to keep slavery out of the topic since all seem to know the war wasn't about slavery.
This is a good question. The union didn't invade other countries over slavery, just like it didn't invade the separate countries of the south over slavery.
Ethnicity has little to do with it though, other than Lincoln wished to keep blacks out of the territories so there wouldn't be mixing. Not because he was against slavery.
Again on topic, because Lincoln as Spooner pointed out vastly increased the amount of slaves. Notice how the apologist attacks the bad guys of the south because we point out Lincolns tyranny. A common misdirection tactic of progressives, which Lincoln definitely was.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
You do realize that I was asking these questions to defend your point, right?Contrary to apologist opinion very on topic.
In spite of the request to keep slavery out of the topic since all seem to know the war wasn't about slavery.
This is a good question. The union didn't invade other countries over slavery, just like it didn't invade the separate countries of the south over slavery.
Ethnicity has little to do with it though, other than Lincoln wished to keep blacks out of the territories so there wouldn't be mixing. Not because he was against slavery.
Again on topic, because Lincoln as Spooner pointed out vastly increased the amount of slaves. Notice how the apologist attacks the bad guys of the south because we point out Lincolns tyranny. A common misdirection tactic of progressives, which Lincoln definitely was.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
You do realize that I was asking these questions to defend your point, right?
But I glad that we do agree on the points I was making.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
SNIP ...get some basic historic facts straight before building up a narrative about all the reasons that Lincoln was the anti-Christ while the slavers of NC were pure and lily white angels of truth and good principles.
Charles
Please show where a poster in this thread or a recent thread said the slavers of NC were pure and lily white angels of truth and good principles.