Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by certifiedfunds, May 7, 2012.
What other reason would he have used to destroy the Republic?
Oh don't you know? Preserving the union, for the mere sake of preserving the union, was totally worth getting over 600,000 Americans killed. Federal government uber alles!
Jelly beans. He hated the licorice flavored ones?
But seriously, what ????? There is no answer that would not require speculation to your question.
Speculate away. If he couldn't make the war about slavery, what other reason would he have used?
I would say if slavery was not the issue there probably would have been no civil war. The south would not have tried to withdraw from the union and probably would not have attacked federal forts.
Reason? You suppose he wouldn't have just lied. He was a lawyer and a senator from illinois. Lying is the common trait of both.
Haven't you heard?
It's all about that set of journals from his Lawyerin' days, found sometime in the 1980's.
Something to do with Vampyres (or was it Zombies?)
BTW, John C Fremont was the first R to run for POTUS.
If slavery hadn't been an issue, the South wouldn't have been terrified of his election, wouldnt have tried to secede and wouldn't have started the shooting.
(PS: Lincoln was a Representative, not a Senator. )
Lincoln never cared about slavery...he only made it an issue to keep France and Britian from entering the war on the side of the South. Notice he didn't push the issue until after Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation only covered the areas he did not control.
Get over it. You lost.
Besides I thought you southerners claimed it was about states rights.
On a more serious note slavery was an issue that was going to have to be settled with a fight along with establishing federal power over the states. Bloody Kansas proved that. The south was unable or unwilling to fight it out in court or legislative bodies using civilized means.
WoD: get over it. You lost. Quite sucking at the tax payers teat.
On a more serious note: naw, got nothing
You don't fix slavery, by forcing states to be slaves to the feds. 'Commerce Clause" lol.
OK. Since the south would have not seceded, it would never have occurred in the first place.
Lets be honest, slavery was a bad thing. The absolute antithesis of liberty. Had we not participated in it, things would probably have been a lot better today. It was an ethical breach, fed by greed.
Let's be honest nobody is taking up for slavery here.
Not here, but in 1858, there were plenty. If it were not an issue, and the united states had never used slavery, the odds of the civil war ever happening would have been a lot smaller.
So what was Cfunds not being honest about?
I never said he was being dishonest, just overly hypothetical. It was not my intention to imply that he wasn't. "let's be honest" was an invitation to a frank conversation, not a challenge to his character. If that was not clear, I apologize. The support for slavery was, in my humble opinion, the greatest failure of the founders.
If Lincoln hadn't been born, what reason would he have had to Destroy the republic?
But he was born, and if he hadn't been, he probably would not have had much of an opinion on the issue.
If slavery were not an issue, Lincoln probably would not have been elected president, and the odds of there being a civil war in 1860 would have been drastically lower. The relationship with the states and the fed would probably be a lot different today also.
Alternate explanation: Lincoln knew as President that he couldn't take property without process and compensation. Lincoln knew as CinC that he could take contraband of war, which applied to only those areas in active rebellion against the Union.