Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Everybody did it" is no case.
The man was a stone racist who cared next to nothing about the plight of the blacks, and was only concerned about his place in the history books.
Well, he got that place....The greatest mass murderer of the 19th century.
Bullshit, and you know it. The man was a product of his time, and his efforts did drastically improve the world. Emancipation came about through his actions, and the republican form of government was preserved on the bargain."Everybody did it" is no case.
The man was a stone racist who cared next to nothing about the plight of the blacks, and was only concerned about his place in the history books.
Well, he got that place....The greatest mass murderer of the 19th century.
You can lay the last part squarely at the feet of Andrew Johnson, not Lincoln. Booth's assassination of Lincoln both made things harder on the South (Lincoln had the influence to reign in the punishing measures leveled by the Republican-dominated Congress, while Johnson, a Democrat despite being Lincoln's vice president, did not) and permitted Johnson to end much of the Reconstruction policies related to improving the condition of the freedmen, which he did with gusto, crippling the Freedmen's Bureau and vetoing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which was passed over his veto, though not for his lack of trying to prevent it).He "preserved the union" at gunpoint and "freed" the slaves to become sharecroppers and victims of Jim Crow.
He was a victim of coicumstance!!
http://mikegothard.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/curly-thumb-300x374-21.jpg[img]
What.....[I][B]ever!!![/B][/I][/quote]
Yes, ignore the entire point. Way to win a debate, champ. :razz: At any rate, Lincoln's personal views [I]still[/I] don't affect the end result of the Union cause, which was emancipation and preservation of the free institutions that are now the dominant power in the world, something that [I]would not be[/I] if the United States were broken up before it became a world power, so I'm not sure why you're harping on it; it's really not the point.
And the Confederate States' aggressive policies and blatant disregard of human rights and liberties are also verifiable matters of history. They deserved destruction for their policies, and lo and behold they got it. The entire motivation for the rebellion was the preservation of slavery. Claiming it was the tariff is a joke; the tariff in 1860 was at its lowest level in decades. If that was the reason, they'd have seceded long before. No, as I have already thoroughly demonstrated through the declarations of the Confederate governments in this thread, their motivation was chattel slavery, for which they deserve nothing but scorn from posterity.I ignore nothing.
The "Union cause" was total war, as Lincoln was the CiC.
His ethnocentrism and aggressive motivations for conquering the CS are verifiable matters of recorded history, for those willing to doff the blinders of hero worship to see.
And the Confederate States' aggressive policies and blatant disregard of human rights and liberties are also verifiable matters of history. They deserved destruction for their policies, and lo and behold they got it. The entire motivation for the rebellion was the preservation of slavery. Claiming it was the tariff is a joke; the tariff in 1860 was at its lowest level in decades. If that was the reason, they'd have seceded long before. No, as I have already thoroughly demonstrated through the declarations of the Confederate governments in this thread, their motivation was chattel slavery, for which they deserve nothing but scorn from posterity.I ignore nothing.
The "Union cause" was total war, as Lincoln was the CiC.
His ethnocentrism and aggressive motivations for conquering the CS are verifiable matters of recorded history, for those willing to doff the blinders of hero worship to see.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
The War of Northern Aggression is a popular phrase among Confederate apologists, referring to the supposed outrageous aggression shown by the Union to bring the otherwise peaceful Confederate States back under its rule. But how true is it?
Dud is a cherry picker."If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."
~Abraham Lincoln![]()
Lincoln was a free-labor ideologist, and it was for this reason that he opposed slavery. Was he a racist? Hell yes, but try to find me a significant number of people who weren't in 1860.And in this he was no worse than the vast majority of his contemporaries, and far better than most. [quote="Abraham Lincoln]Certainly the negro is not our equal in colorperhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black.
And the Confederate States' aggressive policies and blatant disregard of human rights and liberties are also verifiable matters of history. They deserved destruction for their policies, and lo and behold they got it. The entire motivation for the rebellion was the preservation of slavery. Claiming it was the tariff is a joke; the tariff in 1860 was at its lowest level in decades. If that was the reason, they'd have seceded long before. No, as I have already thoroughly demonstrated through the declarations of the Confederate governments in this thread, their motivation was chattel slavery, for which they deserve nothing but scorn from posterity.I ignore nothing.
The "Union cause" was total war, as Lincoln was the CiC.
His ethnocentrism and aggressive motivations for conquering the CS are verifiable matters of recorded history, for those willing to doff the blinders of hero worship to see.
And Lincoln ran on a platform of raising the tariff, and while it was Buchanan that signed the actual Morrill Tariff Lincoln certainly supported it.
Morrill Tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for the Declarations of Secession, how about South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States:
Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States by Convention of South CarolinaAnd so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
Oh Really?“The War of Northern Aggression” is a popular phrase among Confederate apologists, referring to the supposed outrageous aggression shown by the Union to bring the otherwise peaceful Confederate States back under its rule. But how true is it?
...
The North invaded the South. That makes them the aggressor.
Wow. Did you even read what I wrote? First off, if Sherman's march in 1864-65 is your example of aggression, I would just like to point out that this postdates a certain campaign of Lee's that ended at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in 1863.The War of Northern Aggression is a popular phrase among Confederate apologists, referring to the supposed outrageous aggression shown by the Union to bring the otherwise peaceful Confederate States back under its rule. But how true is it?
Its very true. The Union burnt to the ground two major southern cities. Sherman stole food and valuables from civilians on his way to Savannah, leaving many a poor farmer with nothing to survive on.
The North invaded the South. That makes them the aggressor.
Let us never forget that not every southerner supported the seccussion.
Whole states refused to succeed, and counties -- even counties in the deep South -- did not WANT their states to succeed.
This fact seems to be overlooked every time this issue comes up.
Just as there were copperheads in the North, there were supporters of the Republic in the South.
Another reason this civil war was so tragic, in my opinion.
Both sides drafted men whose POV was in opposition to fighting for their respective government's cause, ya know.
Plenty of these brave souls died for something that they not only didn't believe in, but actively opposed.