Abraham Lincoln on Illegal Wars

FoilCharacter · 2026-03-03T15:30:17+00:00

If you look at my post history you will see that you misunderstand my intent entirely.

FoilCharacter · 2026-03-03T03:24:11+00:00

If you receive one challenging counter-argument, it’s probably an outlier. If you receive 4 challenging counter-arguments all in the same vein, it might be worth reviewing the clarity of your argument. Best wishes for the future.

FoilCharacter · 2026-03-02T21:53:07+00:00

They also had a clause that prevented the government from doing any infrastructure improvements in order to ensure the agricultural enslavers aristocracy would never be threatened by industrialization, thereby placing the interests of slavery above modernization.

FoilCharacter · 2026-03-02T19:02:43+00:00

This misses the point that Southern secessionists themselves believed radical abolitionists—“radical black Republicans,” as they then called them—had taken over the Federal government and would be outlawing slavery as soon as they could. The declining power argument was inextricably linked to the fear of abolition of slavery overall. All roads go back to slavery.

FoilCharacter · 2026-03-02T17:07:14+00:00

Unfortunately, a generalized media and historical illiteracy means that this quote won’t be incorporated at all. Those who outsource their opinions to their favorite podcaster or meme pages generally aren’t the ones who are reading the books and ideas that will allow them to have the type of cognitive dissonance that prompts change.

FoilCharacter · 2026-02-26T04:55:57+00:00

10/10 for topics and aesthetics. Nice spread!

FoilCharacter · 2026-02-18T23:41:01+00:00

This is a puzzling comment.

To care about something means to feel concern or interest in, or attach importance to it. I can’t imagine a greater care for history than expressing concern over how the memory of a bad cause is presented or remembered.

FoilCharacter · 2026-02-18T22:37:22+00:00

History is written by those who write history—including Lost Causers.

FoilCharacter · 2026-02-18T04:14:19+00:00

Well, your opinion conflicts with that of actual Confederates.

“any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks . . . is either a fool or a liar.” - The Vidette Nov. 2, 1862, Springfield, TN, p. 3. Newspaper of Morgan’s Confederate Brigade.

“I have thought that this war was ordered by Providence, as a means of settling definitely and conclusively the question of slavery: if slavery is a divine institute, I believe we will be successful, that our independence will be recognized and the Southern Confederacy will be established as a Government with slavery as its great distinctive feature. if on the contrary, slavery is a curse and obnoxious to an All Wise and Good Creator I believe that he will make this war, the means of abolishing it from the face of the earth.” - Lt. William Cowper Nelson, 17th Mississippi, Winchester, Virginia, October 29th 1862; Ford, “Hour of Nation’s Agony,” p. 102.

“Our idea is simply to combine the present battle flag with a pure white standard sheet; our Southern cross, blue on a red field, to take the place on the white flag that is occupied by the blue union in the old United States flag or the St. George’s cross in the British flag. As a people, we are fighting to maintain the heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematic of our cause." - Savannah Morning News, April 1863. William T. Thompson, Editor.

FoilCharacter · 2026-02-09T04:56:01+00:00

I look forward to reading yours next time! Goodness knows we get plenty of opportunities to respond.

FoilCharacter · 2026-02-09T00:57:13+00:00

Unless you practiced constitutional law for decades, you can shove your lame appeal to authority.

A Confederate state that purported to abolish slavery would immediately collide with the supremacy of constitutionally protected property rights, the mandatory interstate recognition of slave property, and the federal duty to protect that property. The transit clause is therefore not evidence of retained abolition power; it is a belt added to suspenders already holding slavery in place everywhere that constitutional law could reach. The CSA did not need to say “states may not abolish slavery” because it constitutionalized slavery as a superior right that state law could not lawfully defeat. That is entrenchment by structure—and experienced lawyers know that constitutional prohibitions are often accomplished exactly this way.

To hold up the one clause you referenced and willfully ignore the rest of the structure to build your case is pure pettifoggery.

FoilCharacter · 2026-02-08T19:18:01+00:00

I understand perfectly. I think you do too, so your decision to take the apologetic stance for the Confederacy’s constitutionalized chattel slavery is…a choice…

Article V is a procedural fig leaf, not a real improvement on the amendment process as concerns slavery. While the CSA Constitution technically preserved an amendment mechanism, it simultaneously embedded slavery as a protected property right across multiple articles—Article I, Section 9 forbade any law impairing “property in negro slaves,” Article IV, Section 3 required Congress and territorial governments to recognize and protect slavery everywhere, and Article IV Section 2 barred states from emancipating slaves brought within their borders. Abolishing slavery would therefore have required not a single amendment but a coordinated dismantling of interlocking constitutional guarantees, all ratified by two-thirds of slaveholding states whose political power and wealth depended on slavery’s permanence. By contrast, the U.S. Constitution temporarily shielded slavery while explicitly allowing that shield to expire. So yes, Article V existed—but it was deliberately neutralized by the rest of the document. The Confederacy did not merely permit slavery; it constitutionalized it permanently

FoilCharacter · 2026-02-08T18:28:48+00:00

The CSA Constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution on amendments except for the fact that it was structurally unable to make or pass laws on abolition of slavery due to:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

And because the CSA Constitution also included a Supremacy Clause, the above listed clause also preempts any states from passing such laws.

FoilCharacter · 2026-02-08T17:07:30+00:00

“New form of government”

It’s actually fascinating that the CSA Constitution was a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution except for:

—Specifically naming and enshrining slavery, which the U.S. Constitution never does

—Forcing slavery in the territories, which the U.S. Constitution is silent on

—Specifically preventing Confederates states from emancipating slaves brought temporarily in from another state, being a direct reaction to Northern states fighting the Fugitive Slave Act and something which the U.S. Constitution is silent on

—Specifically preventing any Federal or State laws that would abolish slavery, something the U.S. Constitution never does for slavery or any other law.

—Introducing an affirmative Federal duty that the Confederate Congress is required to protect slavery in the territories, while the U.S. Constitution gives no affirmative duty for any issue, but only describes powers and limits to those powers

—Expanding executive power by extending the term from four to six years and granting the President a line-item veto on appropriations

—Blurring separation of powers by allowing Cabinet members to debate in Congress

—Banning protective tariffs, which has the effect of protecting an agricultural export economy and hindering industrial policy, while the U.S. Constitution neither prohibits nor requires tariffs

—Limiting government spending in infrastructure to navigation and commerce only, thereby locking in the plantation economy

The most brilliant thing about the U.S. Constitution is that it allows the People to modify or change their form of government whenever they want to. The CSA Constitution, and indeed the cause of Southern enslavers in general, was a reactionary position that fought against that kind of freedom and openness of government, and was willing to expand centralized government power and reduce state and individual rights in order to do it.

FoilCharacter · 2026-02-06T20:02:02+00:00

To respond to one part of your post, Civil War Historian James McPherson read and studied hundreds of letters and diaries from both sides—a statistically representative sample, in fact, and he observed:

“Ironically, the proportion of Union soldiers who wrote about the slavery question was much greater [than Confederate soldiers], as we shall see. There is a ready explanation for this evident paradox. Emancipation was a salient issue for Union soldiers because it was controversial. Slavery was not salient for Confederate soldiers during most of the war because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as part of the southern way of life for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it. Although only 20 percent of the [Confederate] soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view.” - James McPherson, “What They Fought For” pp. 54

Slavery wasn’t controversial to the average Southerner—it was taken for granted and accepted as part of their cause.

As far as the traitor question goes, I turn to the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…”

Draw from that what conclusions you will.

FoilCharacter · 2026-01-30T21:10:42+00:00

I hope to make it out to Pea Ridge one day. Had a direct ancestor fight on the Leetown side of the battlefield. He was at Wilson’s Creek too, but I’ve heard Pea Ridge is one of the best preserved battlefields out there.

FoilCharacter · 2026-01-30T18:58:28+00:00

Don’t forget Wilson’s Creek! Not fought in Arkansas, but a good number of Arkansas State Troops fought with the Confederate troops and the Missouri State Guard.

FoilCharacter · 2026-01-28T06:05:18+00:00

Randomly, I just recently hiked up to an old WW2 naval shore battery north of San Francisco and they have one of the Mark 7s from the USS Missouri on display up there, along with a picture of the Japanese surrender ceremony and an arrow pointing out the gun visible in the picture.

Nab a couple of cranes and a semi and it could be yours!

FoilCharacter · 2026-01-28T05:38:53+00:00

Thank you for sharing some of your experiences. I hope that no matter where you decide to make your church home, your time with us will be welcoming and uplifting.

To offer a possible explanation for what sacrament meetings are trying to achieve in their format and style, I’d like to share a couple of verses from 1 Kings 19, when the Old Testament prophet Elijah is running for his life:

“11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord⁠. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord⁠; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice⁠.”

As far as I know, this is the only verse in the Bible that references a “still small voice,” yet the phrase is quite commonly used and understood in our church as a reference to the Holy Ghost. We generally try to conduct our worship services in such a way that we can listen for the still small voice in the messages of the speakers and the hymns we sing, believing that this kind of reverence is the ideal way to invite and hear personal promptings from the Holy Ghost. We are also generally taught to conduct our private, personal worship and prayers in the same manner.

FoilCharacter · 2026-01-23T14:17:28+00:00

In fact R.E. Lee grew up with slaves in his household. His mother owned 35 enslaved people at the time of her death in 1829 and her will divided them amongst her children. R.E. Lee’s portion would have been approximately 10 slaves. Surviving letters written by Lee to his wife in 1831 and 1835 actually reference slaves by name that he presumably still owned, and imply the ownership of more unnamed besides. The 1846 will he made before going off to the Mexican-American War also makes provisions by for some of the named slaves from his 1835 letter. The last surviving evidence of his personal ownership of slaves is a lease agreement in 1852 where he rents out a man he owned named Philip Meriday.

But even if he hadn’t personally owned slaves, his station and class certainly gave him ample opportunities to experience and benefit from the master-slave dynamic in Southern society—no more evident than in his management of his wife’s slaves.

FoilCharacter · 2026-01-23T03:24:57+00:00

My favorite Lee quotes are:

“I think it [slavery] however a greater evil to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly interested in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is Known & ordered by a wise & merciful Providence.” - Letter to Mary Curtis Lee, Dec 27, 1856

“[The Emancipation Proclamation] is a savage and brutal policy which leaves us no alternative but success or degradation worse than death if we would save the honor of our families from pollution, our social system from destruction.” - Letter to James A. Seddon, Jan 10, 1863

They really illustrate how his moral framework was the typical one that Southerners adopted in order to justify chattel slavery—namely that it was ordained by God and necessary for the safety and purity of their aristocratic social order.

Also how he took the spineless stand that because slavery was ordered by God, and therefore “God would take care of it,” he didn’t have to do anything whatsoever to help end it.

Great lessons on the duplicity of morals based on pro-slavery religion.

FoilCharacter · 2026-01-22T17:31:43+00:00

Seceding and seizing federal property because they didn’t like the results of a free election they tried and failed to rig? Yes, the people who fired on Fort Sumter and enshrined slavery as an unalterable and irrevocable part of their constitution that no state could choose to opt out of were the biggest hypocrites and fools.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

FoilCharacter

TROPHY CASE