Meh. Each will have an opinion of his own. I consider him nothing less than a tyrant cut from the same cloth as King George.
The article is, regardless, a good read.
Meh. Each will have an opinion of his own. I consider him nothing less than a tyrant cut from the same cloth as King George.
The article is, regardless, a good read.
Lincoln was not perfect by any means, but he was no King George.
"The river was died with the blood of the SLAUGHTERED for two hundred yards. The approximate loss was upward of five hundred killed,but few of the officers escaping. My loss was about twenty killed. It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with southerners." Nathan Bedford Forrest CSA,Future first Grand Dragon of the KKK..... "I will drink all the blood spilled by secession" Jefferson Davis,to crowds of cheering people........ Some heroes you have there........... There are many things I disagree with Lincoln about and I feel no inclination to stand up for him. I do have the inclination to denounce the CSA. The undeniable FACT is that the north would have stopped at any time and allowed the states that seceded back into the Union as long as slavery was not included in the deal. The Southern states WANTED to quit,they WANTED to end the war and rejoin the Union but ONLY IF SLAVERY WAS PROTECTED. To keep screaming "states rights states rights" may sound really great to you but history speaks for itself. The South was willing to rejoin the Union with only ONE condition,that slavery was protected. Or they were willing to kill hundreds of thousands to protect their precious "peculiar institution". You can dislike Lincoln all you want,but you really should take an objective look at history(read something that doesn't come with preconceived prejudices)and find some different heroes.
Almost without exception, what you have posted is inaccurate. Neither the North or South had any particular allegiance to a position regarding slavery during The Conflict. Slavery is not what started it nor is it what sustained it. To say it another way that is usually more helpful, the American Civil War would have happened even if not one slave had ever been brought to these shores. The root cause of the South's unhappiness was the industrially prosperous North more and more taking control of politics from the agriculturally poor South. It would take volumes to get you up to speed on all of what that means but the summary is that it has nothing to do with slavery. Absolutely ALL you have read in modern script trying to make it so is nothing but historical revision being created for self-serving opportunists.
It should be ignored.
Note: The popcorn is a statement not just tagging the thread.
I do find the last few posts fascinating.
I'm on the edge of my seat here.
If that was really the case, why didn't the civil war start during the nullification crisis?
"Modern script" has nothing to do with it and your assumption that "It would take volumes to get you up to speed on what that means" is beyond pretentious..... Modern script did not get Charles Sumner beat nearly to death on the floor of the Senate. Abraham Lincoln,who only wanted to preserve the Union, said "The war is in some way about slavery". In U.S. Grants memoirs he was abundantly clear about what he felt the "root cause" of the war was and he never read a present day history book. Abraham Lincoln was not President when the tariffs were instituted yet no Southern states seceded until he was elected. Hmmm. Fear of the north taking control of politics is true,but that was also very much about slavery. Up until more and more territories were becoming states the representatives in Congress were relatively balanced. The South knew that if slavery was not allowed in the new states then the representatives from the new states would not have Southern sympathies and the balance of power would tip farther away from them. There were other big issues than slavery. However the passion revolved around slavery and war takes passion. Every single newspaper and almost every single piece of correspondence from the period has one main subject. SLAVERY. That is not modern script. On the contrary, the popular saying that slavery had almost nothing to do with the war is modern script. I am not saying that the North went to war over slavery,they went to war over secession. I am not saying the South had no other reasons than slavery. But to say that slavery was not the root cause lurking in the background is to be in denial. Apparently no one actually alive at that time really knew what they were talking about.Almost without exception, what you have posted is inaccurate. Neither the North or South had any particular allegiance to a position regarding slavery during The Conflict. Slavery is not what started it nor is it what sustained it. To say it another way that is usually more helpful, the American Civil War would have happened even if not one slave had ever been brought to these shores. The root cause of the South's unhappiness was the industrially prosperous North more and more taking control of politics from the agriculturally poor South. It would take volumes to get you up to speed on all of what that means but the summary is that it has nothing to do with slavery. Absolutely ALL you have read in modern script trying to make it so is nothing but historical revision being created for self-serving opportunists.
It should be ignored.
If that was really the case, why didn't the civil war start during the nullification crisis?
Henry, you keep using the term "war of aggression". What does that mean, exactly to you? Does that mean there are wars that are non-aggressive?
Those that seceded were not looking to take over control of the central government.
It was a war of northern aggression.