Who you callin a Cracker?........

oh...lets be politicaly correct.... you euro saltine...

He is correct in his statement the only reason Lincoln included slavery in the issue was for money.....the North almost lost the war due to lack of funds.......people wishing to abolish slavery had money and would finance the North if they eradicated slavery.....one of the very first political back room deal to get the way through for the union.......

There's also a case to be made that the Civil Was was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL war since it was actually fought over the RIGHTS of the STATES to SECEDE from the experimental 'union'. It is still the War of Northern Aggression, and Lincoln brought it unconstitutionally against the South when those States chose to exercise their RIGHT to secede from the experiment. The issue of slavery was a smokescreen for an illegal war prosecuted illegally.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/890304.html

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."

I watched that video, and even Glen Beck couldn't show that the administration had anything to do with it. Believe me, if Glen couldn't connect it to Obama, then he had nothing to do with the case.

I ate a cracka, I ate every last eye-o-ta of a cracka...

The Emancipation Proclomation didn't even outlaw slavery in Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri - because they didn't secede. The proclomation was more of a military tactic. It was designed so that when southern blacks heard news of it, they would revolt against their "masters" and thus hurt the ability of the South to produce goods. The tactic actually worked to some extent.

I did it to.

Get somewhat off topic.

I gather from some responses, it's ok for the Panthers to wanna' kill (white) babies.

I'll call out the lil' crackroach, in the vid. who wants babies dead, to kill the first one himself.

it is hate speech and as legal in america as carrying a gun,, if its not used to actually hurt someone physically,, its overlooked as a 'right'

The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[33] and incitement to riot.[34] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[35] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

so, if my spouse and I get in an argument because he beats the crap out of my kid,, and I decide to leave, and we fight over my 'right' to do so,,,,,what would you say STARTED the whole thing?

Actually you have a right to own a gun, and you have a right to use that weapon in atime of war or self defense in a life threatening situation and yes the would hurt someone.

yes, in self defense

right to bear arms

right to free speech gives you the right to say hateful, even bigoted and racist things,,,,

the new black panthers have to call themself new for some reason,,,kind of like the democrats have evolved since their inception, I think this group DEVOLVED,,,,its a shame such hatred is spurred by anyone,, but it is an american right(something I think would please those who always complain that we are too regulated and have too many laws)

so threatening to kill people and children is ok? if a white guy stands in a mall and starts calling for the murder of black kids, its ok?

its not ok, but its legal,,,,with the exception of disturbing the peace or enciting to riot,,,,,,people have the right to say whatever they wish,,,

i guess when they start killing some white babies, then they can do something about it...

absolutely,,,taking a life is illegal,,,talking about the idea of taking life is not,,,

I'd consider that scenario a PERSONAL FAMILY MATTER and not get involved in it. What started it would be irrelevant to me.

lincoln was the first republican prez, and the republican party was strated to get rid of slavery.

read this page

http://www.answers.com/topic/republican-party

This is very true. The Confederacy even used the Jeffersonian argument of Nullification Doctrine.

This is not true. The biggest divide at the time was State's Rights. Slavery was a secondary issue.

I shall quote Lincoln for you (Lysander Spooner uses this quote in his Civil War writings, and it can be found in any good Lincoln bio)- "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it."


So you see, Lincoln's real goal was consolidation of power over the States, not an enlightened ideal of equality of men.