My argument is that Lincoln is lauded for abolishing slavery. Fair enough. Slavery had to end for numerous reasons. No one looks at how he went about it. He KILLED 600,000+ Americans to get it done. He made the war decision almost immediately after secession. It seems to me negotiation and patience could have avoided pitting brother against brother on the battlefield. And, if war had to happen, it had to happen. It didn't have to happen 130 days later.

And, please, let's not decide that the CSA would have sided against the USA in WWI. That's speculative nonsense.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 3:25:00 PM (view original):
My argument is that Lincoln is lauded for abolishing slavery. Fair enough. Slavery had to end for numerous reasons. No one looks at how he went about it. He KILLED 600,000+ Americans to get it done. He made the war decision almost immediately after secession. It seems to me negotiation and patience could have avoided pitting brother against brother on the battlefield. And, if war had to happen, it had to happen. It didn't have to happen 130 days later.

And, please, let's not decide that the CSA would have sided against the USA in WWI. That's speculative nonsense.

Well, maybe the South shouldn't have seceded if they didn't want war.

Maybe the Kurds shouldn't have been Kurds if they didn't want Saddam to kill them.

Lincoln - Saddam in a stovepipe hat.

If Lincoln were President today, protestors would be shot in the street by the military. No questions asked.

Talk about speculative nonsense.

Posted by The Taint on 8/9/2017 3:40:00 PM (view original):
Talk about speculative nonsense.

Someone's still bitter that they lost and can't own people anymore.

Well, history tells us how Lincoln dealt with resistance. CSA history doesn't indicate anything but the ability to lose a war.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 3:44:00 PM (view original):
Well, history tells us how Lincoln dealt with resistance. CSA history doesn't indicate anything but the ability to lose a war.

And the desperation to continue to own people. Evidenced by the fact that they were willing to go to war over it.

The quickest way to free the slaves in that instance was war

Correct me if I am wrong, but there were more than 600,000 slaves in the South from 1776-1865, weren't there?

There were 4 million slaves in 1860. So yeah, maybe freeing 4 million was worth 600,000 lives.

Good job, Lincoln.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 4:35:00 PM (view original):
There were 4 million slaves in 1860. So yeah, maybe freeing 4 million was worth 600,000 lives.

Good job, Lincoln.

Exactly

Correct. It the United States of America didn't classify them as property.

I also want to reiterate that I am not the type of person to saint people. Doing that is what got misconceptions about people like Columbus and Custer going. Lincoln obviously was imperfect. I think Jefferson was the greatest president ever. I think partially why we love Lincoln so much was his sudden death (Kennedy gets the same treatment). But comparing Lincoln to Saddam is completely misguided.

it is beneath most of us to be debating whether there should have been a war to end slavery.