best president ever Finals Time! Topic

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Let's not pretend Custer was rogue. He was working on behalf of the US Government.

The same government that killed 600,000+ Americans but didn't see fit to abolish slavery until 1865.

We weren't a very civilized country back in the 1800s. Hell, women couldn't vote until the 1920s.
I don't know how any of that changes the fact that the south was willing to go to war to protect its ownership of people.
I'm guessing that the south didn't secede from the Union because they were trying to provoke a war with the north over slavery. They seceded because they wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted to do without being overruled by the north.

Lincoln did not declare war on the south because he was trying to abolish slavery. He went to war because he felt that the south had no legal standing to attempt to secede from the Union. The CSA was not recognized by the Union, and the war was over bringing them back into the fold.

And while Lincoln was also personally against slavery on moral grounds, he was not in favor of abolishing slavery in the south because he knew that doing so would destroy the southern economy, which NEEDED slavery to survive.

And before anybody gets all pissy and starts throwing around the Emancipation Proclamation as "Lincoln freed the slaves!!!", they should understand what the true purpose of the EP was . . . it was a carrot (or a threat) to try to bring the rebellious southern states back into the Union. If they had stopped fighting and returned, they would have been allowed to keep their slaves. But they didn't, so when the war was over and the south had lost, they lost the backbone of their economy.

These may be uncomfortable and unpopular facts, but they are facts.

You can actually learn things by reading books. You should try it some time. Educate yourself, rather than repeat the rhetoric you learned in elementary school.
8/10/2017 2:38 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 2:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/8/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/8/2017 2:16:00 PM (view original):
By sending a warship to attempt to take an unfinished fort, he orchestrated a war. Let's not be ridiculous and think we'd still have slaves today if not for the Civil War. Perhaps a war was necessary but it wasn't necessary that day.

I won't bother with a history lesson, I might screw it up, but troops abandoned Fort Moultrie in Dec 1860 and moved to unfinished Fort Sumter. There was no direct order from DC to do this. The commanding officer at FM did it on his own. The SC Govt asked the garrison to abandon the unfinished fort. They did not. Lincoln sent a ship to resupply/increase the number of Union troops. That ship was turned away with shots over it's bow. 3 months later, Lincoln sent a fleet of ships to attempt to do the same. Civil War began.

It was a really stupid way to start killing Americans. Again, maybe a war would have been necessary to end slavery(not the ONLY issue but, as I said, I'm not giving a history lesson on States' rights or ridiculous tariffs from DC that crushed the South's economy) but starting it over meaningless, incomplete fort was dumb.
Slavery was the issue. It's why South Carolina seceded. States' rights to own people.
Good Lord. This again?

I take it you've never read a history book to understand what the Civil War was about, because you're still swinging and missing.
Educate me. Why did South Carolina secede?
Do you have access to the internet? Almost all of the states that seceded formally listed their reasons. You can probably find them.
Yep. They're there for all to see. Texas was particularly upset that the Feds were doing a ****** job of protecting it's citizens from injuns. There was some talk that the Northern states controlled Congress and would railroad legislation that favored the Northern economy. There's more. Feel free to read them. And, yep, slavery was one of the issues.
8/10/2017 2:42 PM
Unless these "reasons" for secession were actually written by the Southern leaders of that time, I would take them with a grain of salt anyway.

If there's one thing we've learned, historians like to make **** up to fit their own personal world views.... ESPECIALLY on the Interwebs.

I'm pretty sure Jefferson Davis didn't write up a manifesto on blogspot.com
8/10/2017 2:46 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Let's not pretend Custer was rogue. He was working on behalf of the US Government.

The same government that killed 600,000+ Americans but didn't see fit to abolish slavery until 1865.

We weren't a very civilized country back in the 1800s. Hell, women couldn't vote until the 1920s.
I don't know how any of that changes the fact that the south was willing to go to war to protect its ownership of people.
I'm guessing that the south didn't secede from the Union because they were trying to provoke a war with the north over slavery. They seceded because they wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted to do without being overruled by the north.

Lincoln did not declare war on the south because he was trying to abolish slavery. He went to war because he felt that the south had no legal standing to attempt to secede from the Union. The CSA was not recognized by the Union, and the war was over bringing them back into the fold.

And while Lincoln was also personally against slavery on moral grounds, he was not in favor of abolishing slavery in the south because he knew that doing so would destroy the southern economy, which NEEDED slavery to survive.

And before anybody gets all pissy and starts throwing around the Emancipation Proclamation as "Lincoln freed the slaves!!!", they should understand what the true purpose of the EP was . . . it was a carrot (or a threat) to try to bring the rebellious southern states back into the Union. If they had stopped fighting and returned, they would have been allowed to keep their slaves. But they didn't, so when the war was over and the south had lost, they lost the backbone of their economy.

These may be uncomfortable and unpopular facts, but they are facts.

You can actually learn things by reading books. You should try it some time. Educate yourself, rather than repeat the rhetoric you learned in elementary school.
^
8/10/2017 2:47 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 5:31:00 PM (view original):
Mike's fairy tale:

Hey man, the south was just minding their own business. Yeah, we know slavery is horrible now but, back then, slaves were just property. Lincoln attacked without even giving negotiation a shot. If he had just waited, the south would have voluntarily given up slaves soon enough. No need to kill 600,000 people.

Reality:

The South relied on millions of slaves. As soon as they thought Lincoln was even considering abolishment, they seceded. They made it clear in their secession declarations that this was not negotiable. Abolishment was a non-starter. Lincoln was going to have take the slaves over the South's dead bodies. So he did. And he was a great president because of it.
Fact check: Lincoln was not "considering abolishment", despite his own personal moral objection to slavery. The south had a knee jerk reaction to Lincoln's election, and seceded due to unfounded fear of what they thought Lincoln might do as President. Which he actually had no plans to do.
8/10/2017 2:48 PM
I think the problem with mike's argument, though, is that he assumes that Lincoln had a better decision he could have made. the presidents leading up to lincoln did a pretty sh*t job, and put lincoln in the spot that he was in. Mike has not expressed what lincoln could have done better, instead repeating the effects of having to decide between multiple evils
8/10/2017 2:50 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 8/10/2017 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Unless these "reasons" for secession were actually written by the Southern leaders of that time, I would take them with a grain of salt anyway.

If there's one thing we've learned, historians like to make **** up to fit their own personal world views.... ESPECIALLY on the Interwebs.

I'm pretty sure Jefferson Davis didn't write up a manifesto on blogspot.com
http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm

8/10/2017 2:51 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Let's not pretend Custer was rogue. He was working on behalf of the US Government.

The same government that killed 600,000+ Americans but didn't see fit to abolish slavery until 1865.

We weren't a very civilized country back in the 1800s. Hell, women couldn't vote until the 1920s.
I don't know how any of that changes the fact that the south was willing to go to war to protect its ownership of people.
I'm guessing that the south didn't secede from the Union because they were trying to provoke a war with the north over slavery. They seceded because they wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted to do without being overruled by the north.

Lincoln did not declare war on the south because he was trying to abolish slavery. He went to war because he felt that the south had no legal standing to attempt to secede from the Union. The CSA was not recognized by the Union, and the war was over bringing them back into the fold.

And while Lincoln was also personally against slavery on moral grounds, he was not in favor of abolishing slavery in the south because he knew that doing so would destroy the southern economy, which NEEDED slavery to survive.

And before anybody gets all pissy and starts throwing around the Emancipation Proclamation as "Lincoln freed the slaves!!!", they should understand what the true purpose of the EP was . . . it was a carrot (or a threat) to try to bring the rebellious southern states back into the Union. If they had stopped fighting and returned, they would have been allowed to keep their slaves. But they didn't, so when the war was over and the south had lost, they lost the backbone of their economy.

These may be uncomfortable and unpopular facts, but they are facts.

You can actually learn things by reading books. You should try it some time. Educate yourself, rather than repeat the rhetoric you learned in elementary school.

I'm guessing that the south didn't secede from the Union because they were trying to provoke a war with the north over slavery.


You're guessing? Seems like seceding and then firing the first shot was a ****** strategy if they didn't want war.

They seceded because they wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted to do without being overruled by the north.


And the primary "do whatever they wanted? Slavery. We know this because they were explicit in the secession documents:

South Carolina:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…

Texas:

“[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits–a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?”

Louisiana:

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of an­nexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

Alabama:

Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republi­can party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new princi­ples, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.

Should I keep going?

8/10/2017 2:52 PM
IMO, I think a war between the North and South was inevitable. Also, if the south stays the CSA, we can assume that the slaves do not get 'freed' anytime soon. But does the USA become a powerhouse without the south?
8/10/2017 2:52 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 5:31:00 PM (view original):
Mike's fairy tale:

Hey man, the south was just minding their own business. Yeah, we know slavery is horrible now but, back then, slaves were just property. Lincoln attacked without even giving negotiation a shot. If he had just waited, the south would have voluntarily given up slaves soon enough. No need to kill 600,000 people.

Reality:

The South relied on millions of slaves. As soon as they thought Lincoln was even considering abolishment, they seceded. They made it clear in their secession declarations that this was not negotiable. Abolishment was a non-starter. Lincoln was going to have take the slaves over the South's dead bodies. So he did. And he was a great president because of it.
Fact check: Lincoln was not "considering abolishment", despite his own personal moral objection to slavery. The south had a knee jerk reaction to Lincoln's election, and seceded due to unfounded fear of what they thought Lincoln might do as President. Which he actually had no plans to do.
hey dummy, you see the part where I wrote: "they thought"
8/10/2017 2:54 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 8/10/2017 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Unless these "reasons" for secession were actually written by the Southern leaders of that time, I would take them with a grain of salt anyway.

If there's one thing we've learned, historians like to make **** up to fit their own personal world views.... ESPECIALLY on the Interwebs.

I'm pretty sure Jefferson Davis didn't write up a manifesto on blogspot.com
Jesus Christ.
8/10/2017 2:54 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?
The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.
No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?
Wait, so the guy who equated Lincoln to Saddam Hussein is going to try to give me **** for being slightly hyperbolic???
So you don't think Saddam was doing what he thought was best for his country, and maintaining his power, when he started killing Kurds?

I disagree.
No, I don't think Saddam's genocide was comparable to Lincoln winning the Civil War after the South chose to fight to continue to own people.
Well, I'd try another leader but the options are pretty limited. Not a lot of Presidents, Dictators, Kings, etc kill their OWN people to maintain their power/structure. Most have the decency to kill people from other countries.
At that point, the South was another country. Another country that left the US because it wanted to continue to own people.

The only way to free the 4 million slaves being held in the South was to go to war.
The south considered itself another country.

The north did NOT consider the south to be another country.

That's a fundamental fact that you seem to continually ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Once again, your ignorance of truth is on display. The Civil War was not about ending slavery. It was about bringing rogue states, with no legal standing to separate from the Union, back into the Union.
8/10/2017 2:55 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Let's not pretend Custer was rogue. He was working on behalf of the US Government.

The same government that killed 600,000+ Americans but didn't see fit to abolish slavery until 1865.

We weren't a very civilized country back in the 1800s. Hell, women couldn't vote until the 1920s.
I don't know how any of that changes the fact that the south was willing to go to war to protect its ownership of people.
I'm guessing that the south didn't secede from the Union because they were trying to provoke a war with the north over slavery. They seceded because they wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted to do without being overruled by the north.

Lincoln did not declare war on the south because he was trying to abolish slavery. He went to war because he felt that the south had no legal standing to attempt to secede from the Union. The CSA was not recognized by the Union, and the war was over bringing them back into the fold.

And while Lincoln was also personally against slavery on moral grounds, he was not in favor of abolishing slavery in the south because he knew that doing so would destroy the southern economy, which NEEDED slavery to survive.

And before anybody gets all pissy and starts throwing around the Emancipation Proclamation as "Lincoln freed the slaves!!!", they should understand what the true purpose of the EP was . . . it was a carrot (or a threat) to try to bring the rebellious southern states back into the Union. If they had stopped fighting and returned, they would have been allowed to keep their slaves. But they didn't, so when the war was over and the south had lost, they lost the backbone of their economy.

These may be uncomfortable and unpopular facts, but they are facts.

You can actually learn things by reading books. You should try it some time. Educate yourself, rather than repeat the rhetoric you learned in elementary school.

I'm guessing that the south didn't secede from the Union because they were trying to provoke a war with the north over slavery.


You're guessing? Seems like seceding and then firing the first shot was a ****** strategy if they didn't want war.

They seceded because they wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted to do without being overruled by the north.


And the primary "do whatever they wanted? Slavery. We know this because they were explicit in the secession documents:

South Carolina:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…

Texas:

“[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits–a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?”

Louisiana:

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of an­nexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

Alabama:

Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republi­can party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new princi­ples, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.

Should I keep going?

You should. Because you cherry-picked. No one here has said "Slavery wasn't one of the reasons for secession." Pretty sure everyone knows it was a factor. But NOT the ONLY factor.
8/10/2017 2:56 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Let's not pretend Custer was rogue. He was working on behalf of the US Government.

The same government that killed 600,000+ Americans but didn't see fit to abolish slavery until 1865.

We weren't a very civilized country back in the 1800s. Hell, women couldn't vote until the 1920s.
I don't know how any of that changes the fact that the south was willing to go to war to protect its ownership of people.
I'm guessing that the south didn't secede from the Union because they were trying to provoke a war with the north over slavery. They seceded because they wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted to do without being overruled by the north.

Lincoln did not declare war on the south because he was trying to abolish slavery. He went to war because he felt that the south had no legal standing to attempt to secede from the Union. The CSA was not recognized by the Union, and the war was over bringing them back into the fold.

And while Lincoln was also personally against slavery on moral grounds, he was not in favor of abolishing slavery in the south because he knew that doing so would destroy the southern economy, which NEEDED slavery to survive.

And before anybody gets all pissy and starts throwing around the Emancipation Proclamation as "Lincoln freed the slaves!!!", they should understand what the true purpose of the EP was . . . it was a carrot (or a threat) to try to bring the rebellious southern states back into the Union. If they had stopped fighting and returned, they would have been allowed to keep their slaves. But they didn't, so when the war was over and the south had lost, they lost the backbone of their economy.

These may be uncomfortable and unpopular facts, but they are facts.

You can actually learn things by reading books. You should try it some time. Educate yourself, rather than repeat the rhetoric you learned in elementary school.

I'm guessing that the south didn't secede from the Union because they were trying to provoke a war with the north over slavery.


You're guessing? Seems like seceding and then firing the first shot was a ****** strategy if they didn't want war.

They seceded because they wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted to do without being overruled by the north.


And the primary "do whatever they wanted? Slavery. We know this because they were explicit in the secession documents:

South Carolina:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…

Texas:

“[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits–a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?”

Louisiana:

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of an­nexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

Alabama:

Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republi­can party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new princi­ples, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.

Should I keep going?

You should. Because you cherry-picked. No one here has said "Slavery wasn't one of the reasons for secession." Pretty sure everyone knows it was a factor. But NOT the ONLY factor.
It was the primary factor. By far. No other issue was anywhere near as important as slavery.
8/10/2017 2:58 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?
The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.
No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?
Wait, so the guy who equated Lincoln to Saddam Hussein is going to try to give me **** for being slightly hyperbolic???
So you don't think Saddam was doing what he thought was best for his country, and maintaining his power, when he started killing Kurds?

I disagree.
No, I don't think Saddam's genocide was comparable to Lincoln winning the Civil War after the South chose to fight to continue to own people.
Well, I'd try another leader but the options are pretty limited. Not a lot of Presidents, Dictators, Kings, etc kill their OWN people to maintain their power/structure. Most have the decency to kill people from other countries.
At that point, the South was another country. Another country that left the US because it wanted to continue to own people.

The only way to free the 4 million slaves being held in the South was to go to war.
The south considered itself another country.

The north did NOT consider the south to be another country.

That's a fundamental fact that you seem to continually ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Once again, your ignorance of truth is on display. The Civil War was not about ending slavery. It was about bringing rogue states, with no legal standing to separate from the Union, back into the Union.
Sure. Why did those rogue states leave?
8/10/2017 2:58 PM
◂ Prev 1...16|17|18|19|20...45 Next ▸
best president ever Finals Time! Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.