The Worst President in History

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,611
10,048
113
Toronto
There is one member (the one who loves to virtue signal) who is ignorant of the cause/reason for the American Civil War.

"The war began as a struggle to preserve the Union, not a struggle to free the slaves"
And one of the main reasons that the southern states wanted to secede is because they wanted to retain slavery. The issue of slavery was tearing the country apart.

In 1854, the U.S. Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which essentially opened all new territories to slavery by asserting the rule of popular sovereignty over congressional edict. Pro- and anti-slavery forces struggled violently in “Bleeding Kansas,” while opposition to the act in the North led to the formation of the Republican Party, a new political entity based on the principle of opposing slavery’s extension into the western territories. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case (1857) confirmed the legality of slavery in the territories, the abolitionist John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry in 1859 convinced more and more southerners that their northern neighbors were bent on the destruction of the “peculiar institution” that sustained them. Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860 was the final straw, and within three months seven southern states–South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas–had seceded from the United States.

Lincoln opposed slavery.

You condemn him for fighting against slavery and make posts like the one below. You are consistent in your signalling, but I see nothing virtuous.
 
Last edited:

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,840
113
There is one member (the one who loves to virtue signal) who is ignorant of the cause/reason for the American Civil War.

"The war began as a struggle to preserve the Union, not a struggle to free the slaves"

"as the war dragged on it became increasingly clear to President Abraham Lincoln the best way to force the seceded states into submission was to undermine their labor supply and economic engine which was sustaining the south—slavery."
Slavery in the United States | American Battlefield Trust (battlefields.org)
Today Lincoln would be banned from Twitter. His attitude toward the blacks was evolving as were his public arguments pre, during and after the war.
 

jalimon

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2016
6,562
6,271
113
Today Lincoln would be banned from Twitter. His attitude toward the blacks was evolving as were his public arguments pre, during and after the war.
Isn't he the one who went to war to free the slave?
 

Darts

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2017
23,023
11,217
113
Isn't he the one who went to war to free the slave?
No, that is what the ignorant, the lefties and the virtue signallers would like you to think. They have to find a reason for justifying Lincoln starting a war that killed over 700,000 Americans.

"The war began as a struggle to preserve the Union, not a struggle to free the slaves"

"as the war dragged on it became increasingly clear to President Abraham Lincoln the best way to force the seceded states into submission was to undermine their labor supply and economic engine which was sustaining the south—slavery."
Slavery in the United States | American Battlefield Trust (battlefields.org)
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,840
113
Isn't he the one who went to war to free the slave?
The run up to the American Civil War was a bit more complex- not a subject for this board. As were the multiple positions that Lincoln took on the subject- he was a politician after all. Suffice to say, like the vast majority of the Northerners, he was an abolishionist, he was not necessarily an advocate for the equal rights or even the universal suffrage. But, for you guys let me state without qualifying- Lincoln- good. Slavery- bad.
 

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
4,282
5,371
113
No, that is what the ignorant, the lefties and the virtue signallers would like you to think. They have to find a reason for justifying Lincoln starting a war that killed over 700,000 Americans.

"The war began as a struggle to preserve the Union, not a struggle to free the slaves"

"as the war dragged on it became increasingly clear to President Abraham Lincoln the best way to force the seceded states into submission was to undermine their labor supply and economic engine which was sustaining the south—slavery."
Slavery in the United States | American Battlefield Trust (battlefields.org)
The south rebelled because the Republicans of that time were focused on minimizing slavery. They were stopping new states from allowing slavery, and banning the import of new slaves. The South claims that this was over states rights and not slavery....but the right they were fighting for was the right to have chattel slavery. Lincoln may not have really cared about slavery, and the freeing of the slaves was strategic.

Simply put, saying the Civil War was not about slavery is a major disservice to history. The Souther losers have argued for the past 150 or so years that the war was fought over States Rights! Lincoln did start fighting to preserve the Union, but the underlying reason for this was slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jalimon and benstt

Darts

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2017
23,023
11,217
113
The slavery issue could have been resolved without killing 700,000 human beings. In fact, slavery was already on its way out by 1860. What plans did Lincoln have for the emancipated slaves? He had none.

So, I ask again.
WHY WAR? WHY KILL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE?
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,611
10,048
113
Toronto
The slavery issue could have been resolved without killing 700,000 human beings.
How.

In fact, slavery was already on its way out by 1860.
Yet the fact that the southern states wanted to ensure that slavery remained legal in the westward expansion goes against your assertion.

So, I ask again.
WHY WAR? WHY KILL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE?
That usually happens when one side wants to take away land from the other side. They fight for it. The south wanted to secede. You said yourself that Lincoln wanted to preserve the union. He did what he had to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcazar

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,840
113

Darts

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2017
23,023
11,217
113
Being from Quebec and engaged in numerous debates about separation/secession, I firmly believe that people have the inherent right to secede from or join any union without fear of being killed by Lincoln's shock troops.

1) Yes, Quebecers have the right to separate if that is what the people want.
2) Yes, Scotland has the right to secede if that is what the Scots want.
3) Yes, the Northern Irish have the right to rejoin Ireland if that is what the people want.
4) Yes, Ukraine has the right to secede from the Soviet Union if that is what the Ukes want.
5) Yes, the Brits have the right to withdraw from the EU.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,108
113
Being from Quebec and engaged in numerous debates about separation/secession, I firmly believe that people have the inherent right to secede from or join any union without fear of being killed by Lincoln's shock troops.

1) Yes, Quebecers have the right to separate if that is what the people want.
2) Yes, Scotland has the right to secede if that is what the Scots want.
3) Yes, the Northern Irish have the right to rejoin Ireland if that is what the people want.
4) Yes, Ukraine has the right to secede from the Soviet Union if that is what the Ukes want.
5) Yes, the Brits have the right to withdraw from the EU.
The Soviet Union has not existed since 1991.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts