Thread 17940576

Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined

In Abraham Lincoln’s first four months as president, he:

1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.

2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.

3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial which he did.

4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.

5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.

6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.

7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.

8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.

9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.

10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings.

11. Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.

12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.

13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.

>>17940576 (OP)
Cope, loser.

>>17940576 (OP)
>>17940578
>>17940579

>>17940576 (OP)
>when you are praised for abolishing slavery while you actually maintained and expanded the institution to all States and Territories
Based Lincoln.

>>17940576 (OP)
Southerners lost a catastrophic war, which, if it occurred today, would count 8.7 million dead and 10 million wounded, only glorifies and enshrines in the annals of human history, the courage of Southerners and their commitment to democracy, self-government, the Founding Fathers, and especially the Declaration of Independence with its assertion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed

>>17940605
Meds now
>>17940611
That's why they tried to remove the states rights to decide the slavery question? Lol, the confederacy was founded on removing rights from its states and their local governments and thus people.

>>17940576 (OP)
>aggressive war
the dixiefag cries out in pain as he strikes you

>>17940659
You're illiterate. But that's pretty common for uniontards. You're probably not even Americans

>>17940659
>Meds now
The Republicans literally expanded slavery to the whole of the US and to all of its races postwar.

>>17940605
Why are all idolized presidents like this

>>17940930
Because it's leftists coping with a broken system because they think it benefitted them somehow through gifts like civil rights and welfare. Any time a leftist sees the government lick leftist asses it's a good thing. Reminder the only reason they don't like hoover is because they think he should have kicked more leftist asshole to prevent the depression. Theyre nothing but plebeians with no formal philosophy of their own. Empty minded useful idiots

>>17940585
>state's right's
ngmi
>>17940578
>2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
>Traitors are attacking military installations but Congress is not in session i.e. there's Congressmen literally at home in Minnesota who'll only make it here in weeks, I guess it's time to call off the United States
>12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
If the song Take Me Home, Country Roads in unconstitutional, why even bother with the rag

>>17941026
>Traitors
>People that don't support a corrupt establishment
Wasn't Lincoln the traitor?

>>17941032
Lincoln was the duly elected POTUS, the so-called Confederate States of America terrorist organization was trying to destroy the Union and fired first at a federal base. Everything Lincoln did, while ruthless and in cases indefensible, was aimed at and ultimately secured the conservation of the Union, everything Jeff Davis and his henchmen did was aimed at destryong it. If you know what treason means, it's obvious who the traitors were.

>>17941051
>terrorist organization

>>17941055
What else is a non-recognized "state" that is using violence to attempt to achieve a political goal?
And what is this if not a terrorist attack? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Army_of_Manhattan

>>17941051
>duly elected POTUS
>Rigged the Republican primaries

>>17941069
You might want to address some of the thuggery Lincoln is accused of in the OP before you jump to calling any of his opponents a terrorist.

>>17941093
>primaries
lmao
>>17941108
That his opponents were terrorists has nothing to do with Lincoln. Yes, arresting newspaper editors is tyrannical and unconstitutional.

>>17941142
Yes. Lincoln and his goons stole the ballots in his capital city of Springfield Illinois so that Seward wouldn't win the Republican nomination

>>17941143
Or sorry Chicago. He had moved on from polluting Springfield with his presence

>>17941142
It has much to do with that, actually. You're accusing the South of terrorism based on its reactions to the blatant tyranny Lincoln was inflicting upon them. That's not how terrorism works. Not to mention the war was a patently Northern invasion.

>>17940578
>>17940579
Cope

I really don't like Lincoln's precedent of sending in the military if States attempt to secede. Canada (as a Confederation) is a lot more reasonable and has established rules for such a scenario under the Clarity Act. Once a referendum happens and a "clear majority" (whatever that means) votes for independence the government in Ottawa (and Feather Indian bands) has a duty to engage in "good faith" negotiations about the terms of the divorce.

In Alberta, the sovereignty/independence movement is gaining a fair bit of steam, and I'm all for it. I'm just wary of those who want to join the USA, because it's a one way street. Once you're in, there's no leaving. Now, it might be better to be American with all the economic benefits and constitutional protections of being a State, but we will have to think long and hard before joining. Personally, I prefer being a landlocked country with economic agreements with the US and the remaining provinces.

>>17941108
>Whataboutism
Stfu commie rat

>>17941156
A landlocked country the size of Alberta would be subsumed into one of the larger countries around it through economic forces as soon as it broke off.

>>17941156
>constitutional protections of being a State
did you learn nothing

>ITT: retards with communist tier arguments wring their hands about a failed state that lasted less time than most people's goth phase and bitch about how a president had to take extraordinary measures to win a war on his home soil
Go team retard

>>17941143
>>17941146
Not only do you not know that primaries weren't a thing until years later, you've also yet to put forth evidence Lincoln rigged the Republican *Convention*
>>17941152
They seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated, hardly a reaction since Lincoln's electoral platform wasn't threatening already established slavery. Then, after demanding federal officers abandon US army establishments, they fired, which is a patently Southern act of insurrection. The president not only should but is obligated by oath to protect the United States Constutition, and thus was forced to invade.

>>17941168
Don't break off without following the proper channels and shoot at a Federal fort and you'll be fine

>>17941176
this is /his/ not /fukuyama/ you useless redditor, try making an interesting and original point

>>17941156
I'm curious why you believe Canada would act any differently simply because a worthless sheet paper says so. Now if it's a matter of political and military will, I could buy that, especially in the modern era.

>>17941168
do you not realize how good the US has it compared to Canada?
>first amendment
umm no sweaty this is Canada that's hate speech you're going to jail
>second amendment
yikes! this is Canada we're taking your guns because someone used one in a mass shooting

For all the negatives of becoming a part of the US the robust protections of the Constitution+Amendments is not one of them. But it all depends on the judges interpreting it, obviously.

>>17941185
You first, dipshit

>>17941191
The US doesn't actually have a first amendment, if the government deems you a threat they will take you out, it also doesn't have a second amendment. The government does everything in its power to make military grade firearms as unaffordable or hard to obtain as possible. For instance we have a 10% excise tax on all firearms and ammunition in the US which is 100% unconstitutional. 200 dollars for any "regulated" firearm or attachment, unconstitutional. 1986 NFA, unconstitutional.

>>17940576 (OP)
>>17940578
>>17940579
They put this dude on Rushmore

>>17940659
We're all slaves now

>>17941222
>The US doesn't actually have a first amendment
Incorrect
>if the government deems you a threat they will take you out
Ok?
>it also doesn't have a second amendment.
Incorrect
>The government does everything in its power to make military grade firearms as unaffordable or hard to obtain as possible.
Not a violation of the second amendment
>For instance we have a 10% excise tax on all firearms and ammunition in the US which is 100% unconstitutional.
There is no clause that says weapons should be cheap or freely available
>200 dollars for any "regulated" firearm or attachment, unconstitutional. 1986 NFA, unconstitutional.
Irrelevant

>>17940583
nice argument

>>17941424
Butthurt levels: off the charts

>>17941179
The Confederates fired on Fort Sumter because the Northern army was gathering there despite having promised to leave, which would have been a sensible move for the North anyway given it was depleted. Lincoln was already rattling sabers by the time he was inaugurated and then effectively goaded the South into a hot conflict mere days after the South had declared independence.

If you want to justify the Northern invasion, Fort Sumter is a terrible way to do it since, at best, it represents incoherent communication between Union officers, and at worst it was a blatant act of provocation on Southern soil. That wasn't exactly required by virtue of any oath.

>>17941482
Shooting at a fort is an act of war. Reinforcing a fort that has been garrisoned by soldiers fleeing nearby forts that have been overrun by rebels is not an act of war. Comparing the two is idiotic.

>>17941495
Okay but fort sumter was a false flag and lincoln's a giant vagina

eat shit loser

>>17941495
>attack a fort that's being reinforced in your state
>get invaded
That's two acts of military transgression by one side, and you're accusing the other of an act of war and calling its point of view idiotic. Not a good look.

What cultural context does this hatred of Lincoln and the Union come from? is it a contemporary Southern State thing or is it a real academic subject?

>>17941482
>Southern soil
United States federal property in the United States
>goaded the South into a hot conflict mere days after the South had declared independence
that's backwards. "Declaring independence" on the part of a State that ratified the Constitution means open rebellion and it's obviously "goading" the federal government to respond.
This OP is crying about unconstitutionality. What about the fact that secession is unconstitutional? As Chief Justice Chase ruled in Texas v. White:
>Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

>>17941500
Loser cope

>>17941542
>federal property
No such thing

>>17941515
Reinforcing a fortress after the rebels chased the soldiers inside out of other forts within the week is entirely justifiable. Shelling that same fort and proving your side's bellicosity is not.

>>17941625
Incorrect

>>17941634
Source? How can the federal government own property inside of a sovereign state?

>>17941630
I'll be sure to consider what might have gone differently if Davis had written a politely-worded letter to Lincoln over the matter instead.

>>17941642
>The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States
>The Congress shall have Power To … exercise like Authority ("exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever") over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
If South Carolina didn't like federal property maybe it shouldn't have signed on to the Constitution and then ceded the Fort Sumter property to the federal govt.

>>17940576 (OP)
Lincoln was tyrannical.

The North didn't care about slavery where it existed.

“The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them.”
~Abraham Lincoln, “Speech at Peoria, Illinois,” October 16, 1854

“The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery, always really had been concern for the welfare of the white man, not an unnatural sympathy for the Negro.”
~ William Seward (James M. McPherson, The Struggle for Equality: Abolitionists and the Negro in the Civil War and Reconstruction (Princeton, 1964), 24)

“That all unoccupied territory of the United States and such as they may hereafter acquire shall be reserved for the white Caucasian race, a thing that cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery.”
~ Abolitionist Horace Greeley interpreting the Republican Party Platform, 1856.

>>17941949
Eh, the north started to care when the fugitive slave laws started to force them into complicity. It’s one thing to have to ignore your inbred countrymen to the south keeping rape harems and what not. It’s another to be held legally responsible for helping them get back their toys when said toys manage to finally escape. That and ‘I don’t want these guys to undercut labor by landing people’ is a pretty reasonable motive for being an abolitionist.

>>17940576 (OP)
In an interview, Gore Vidal said, “I always thought Lincoln was wrong. I always thought the South had every right to go. If Lincoln had a high moral purpose—which has now been invented for him, posthumously, as the abolition of slavery—I’d say, well it’s illegal but it’s morally worthy.” At the time, however, his motivations were to preserve the Union and centralize power in Washington. “Why,” Vidal adds, “kill 600,000 young men for a notion of the Union, which nobody had thought much of before then?”

>>17940576 (OP)
Based thread. Don’t forget his administration’s issuance of greenbacks to fund the war, which led to hyperinflation in some areas. Gary North wrote about this as well as anyone.

>>17940605
He hated blacks and was verifiably one of the most racist presidents we ever had. He gave many speeches prior to 1861 where he said he had no intention of doing anything about slavery. He sold his wife’s slaves for a profit instead of freeing them. He actively explored sending freedmen to a colony in the Caribbean and even investigated the capacity for ships to transport them there. He didn’t view blacks as human and only “freed the slaves” as a reluctant last ditch effort when the war was carrying on far longer than he expected and he needed to change the narrative as the public discourse was highly negative.

>>17941051
What’s so special about the union? The southern states comprised as a whole were already one of the world’s fastest growing economies and had a highly educated populace (more southerners went to college than northerners in the decades preceding 1861). Sounds like the northern states realized they wouldn’t have much to stand on if the southern states left the union.

>>17941699
Frankly if the Confederacy HADN'T started shooting the war likely wouldn't have happened. Lincoln was not ready to wage war, the Army of the Potomac wasn't battle ready in the least when hostilities broke out. I never hear a Dixiecuck explain why Lincoln was so happy to start a war when he was privately shitting himself over the absolutely miserable state his standing army was in, even before half of the West Point graduates in his high command defected to the Confederacy

>>17940576 (OP)
>>17941051
The claim that the South was “devoted to slavery” is a fabrication derived from a superficial understanding of the historical context. That context was a logistical situation created by a Northern racism opposed to blacks migrating North or West. Combined with the irresponsible demands of radical abolitionists who were pressing for an action that would be a humanitarian and economic disaster.

>>17941642
See anon, there's this thing, called property, which, when sold in a transaction, becomes the property of someone else. So let's say the state of South Carolina sells an island fortress to the Feds, let's just call it Fort Sumter or something, does this mean the fort is the property of South Carolina or the Federal Government?

Take your time. This is a tricky one, so really think about it.

>>17941542
>Texas v White
Decision was in 1869

>>17942173
If that was true then why does every declaration of secession explicitly mention slavery? Why does the Confederate constitution exactly mirror the US constitution but outline in explicit terms that slavery is totally legally protected? Why did everyone in the Confederacy leadership constantly pay lip service to the notion of slavery as the de facto cause for war while this armchair lawyer shit over secession come up in a minority of published and official statements regarding the war?

>>17941949
People in the North felt pretty strongly that slavery was bad even if they hated black people. Most of them had family who had been indentured servants and everyone agreed that shit sucked. Sherman writes in his memoirs that any soldier who didn't give much thought to the plight of slaves became a hard-core abolitionist pretty quickly once they saw the reality of slavery with their own eyes. The notion of chattel slavery is pretty barbaric when you really think about it

>>17942184
>why does every declaration of secession explicitly mention slavery

they don't, maybe half of them do, most from the deep south 7 that initially seceded; multiple states didn't even put reasons for seceding into their secession bills, they just voted to leave

>Why does the Confederate constitution exactly mirror the US constitution

it didn't, the change in slavery's status was one among many (a few?) changes, including prohibitions on internal improvements, line item vetos for the president, etc

>Why did everyone in the Confederacy leadership constantly pay lip service to the notion of slavery as the de facto cause for war while

they didn't, even the third or so of southern elite who were fire-eating slavery proponents were touchy about making the war "about" slavery, because they weren't retards and knew britain et al wouldn't have liked that. the usual evidence is the cornerstone speech, which is probably the highest ranking confederate i've seen invoke slavery, but even that was couched between multiple paragraphs about the tariff and a growing federal government

you are a secondary and it's embarassing to see you parrot john greene history. please stop

>>17940576 (OP)
From the 1830s on, abolitionists argued for secession of the North from the Union. The American Anti-Slavery Society passed the following resolution: "That the Abolitionists of this country should make it one of the primary objects of this agitation to dissolve the American Union." This was also the view of the Douglass Monthly, printed by Frederick Douglass. Abolitionist Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, wrote on February 23, 1861, after the Confederacy was formed:
"We have repeatedly said ... that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their powers from the consent of the American Republicanism governed is sound and just; and that... if the cotton States, or the gulf States only, choose to form an independent nation, they have a clear moral right to do so. Whenever it shall be clear that the great body of Southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union; and anxious to escape from it, we will do our best to forward their views.”

(Quoted in Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Was Davis a Traitor, or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861? (North Charleston: Fletcher & Fletcher, 1995; originally published in 1866), 149)

>>17942173
>>17942184
Very few southerners owned slaves. And there were more abolitionist organizations in the southern states than in the northern states. Moving away from slavery would take time, decades even, with a plan for integrating freedmen into society. Southerners (those who wanted to free the slaves, which were numerous, but probably not the majority) recognized this. Lincoln and the northerners just went scorched earth, passed an amendment, stationed soldiers in southern states to beat up whites for a couple years, and then washed their hands of the whole thing was extremely short-sighted and impulsive with no thought behind it on their part.

The first causalities were Maryland protesters shot and killed by Federal troops

>>17942188
Then why are there documented instances of slaves fighting alongside their confederate masters against the union army and even staying in the fight after their owner had been killed in battle when they could have just run away or joined the union on the battlefield?

And if secession is so bad, why didn’t the southern states invade the north when New England threatened to secede during the war of 1812?

>>17940576 (OP)
The Founders’ goal of confining Article 1 powers of the central government was changed by the War Between the States. The expansion of centralized power before, during, and after the war left clear results. Lincoln's forced program of nationalism was triumphant, and the federal government became the master, rather than the agent, of the states in both North and South. Postwar, southern influence in government became largely insignificant as northern corporate and financial interests took control. The late journalist, writer, and syndicated columnist Joe Sabron asserted the three greatest consolidation of centralized government power in history are Bismarck, Lenin, and Lincoln.

~ John Taylor, Union at all Costs

>>17942194
The vast majority mention slavery explicitly.

>it didn't, the change in slavery's status was one among many (a few?) changes, including prohibitions on internal improvements, line item vetos for the president, etc
These are all twaddle surrounding the giant glowing clause that says SLAVERY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON in what is basically a carbon copy of the constitution
>they didn't, even the third or so of southern elite who were fire-eating slavery proponents were touchy about making the war "about" slavery, because they weren't retards and knew britain et al wouldn't have liked that. the usual evidence is the cornerstone speech, which is probably the highest ranking confederate i've seen invoke slavery, but even that was couched between multiple paragraphs about the tariff and a growing federal government
Apparently England agrees with me because they didn't want to get involved with a slaver rebellion. Ive read the statements both public and private of quite a few of the confederates and they make it pretty clear what they're protecting. Tariffs and shit are not what they're bitching about. They're bitching about their way of life being obliterated.
>you are a secondary and it's embarassing to see you parrot john greene history. please stop
I don't take orders from maggots

>>17940576 (OP)
but how many vampires did he kill?

>>17942208
Stockholm Syndrome or threats of punishment if they didn't fight to keep themselves enslaved. Blacks in confederate uniforms were exceedingly rare because even the dumbest hick knows it's a bad idea to arm people who you are keeping hostage

The vast majority of slaves did not stick around when freed and they very certainly didnt fight for the Confederacy. Outliers and press ganged soldiers do not indicate a broad affection towards being beaten and raped on an institutional level

>>17942221
Hundreds if his secret memoirs are to be believed

>>17942188
In October 1864, Sherman ordered the indiscriminate murder of civilians near Calhoun Georgia. He wrote to his subordinate, Gen. Louis Watkins:

“Cannot you send over about Fairmount and Adairsville, burn ten or twelve houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random, and let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired on from Peace to Kingston!” (Official Records, series 1 Vol. 39, page 494.

Of course, during the march to the Sea through Georgia burned slave residences, stole whatever meager property slaves held and often subjected slave women to brutalization and rape.

“Regiments, in successive relays, committed gang rape in Columbia on scores of slave women” (William G. Simms “City Laid Waste” page 90)

Sherman’s treatment of runaway slaves was so wretched that, despite the fact that his army overflowed with foodstuffs and supplies looted from any civilians unlucky enough to be caught his army’s rapaciously destructive path, he failed to leave behind the ample food, medicine and shelter to serve their human needs. (Thomas G. Robisch, “General William T. Sherman: Would the Georgia Campaigns of the First Commander of the Modern Era Comply with Current Law of War Standards?” Emory International Law Review 9, no.459, 1995 – page 461)

>>17942188
She [Ellen, Sherman’s wife] will have to wait on herself or buy a n***er. What will you think of that- our buying n***ers? But it is inevitable. N***ers won't work unless they are owned, and white servants are not to be found in this parish."
- Sherman 1/21/1860

>>17942201
>Very few southerners owned slaves.
True. These few also owned nearly a third of the Southern population.
>And there were more abolitionist organizations in the southern states than in the northern states.
Being in the area where slavery is happening tends to foster abolitionist sentiments, yeah. Didnt really change much
>Moving away from slavery would take time, decades even, with a plan for integrating freedmen into society.
Lincoln had a plan but was murdered before it could be set in motion andhis successor was a pussy who tried to take half measures
>Southerners (those who wanted to free the slaves, which were numerous, but probably not the majority) recognized this.
They were right
>Lincoln and the northerners just went scorched earth
Based
>passed an amendment, stationed soldiers in southern states to beat up whites for a couple years
Those whites were bandits and hooligans who were trying to terrorize people or attack men in uniform. Dindu nuffin tier shit
>and then washed their hands of the whole thing was extremely short-sighted and impulsive with no thought behind it on their part.
Killing Lincoln was the most self defeating shit any confederate sympathizer could have done

>>17941176
“It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?” -Norm MacDonald

>>17942230
>Sherman said the gamer word
Doesn't refute a goddamn word I said.

>>17942238
>Mongols are known douchebags who won
>Soviets, who are known pricks, won
>The people who are promoting human rights and prosperity are the bad guys
Taking a joke literally is a sure sign of autism

>>17942240
They hated slavery because it meant more blacks. Not because they thought it was wrong. People back then often accused others of blasphemy and that their house/church was going to burn down because they weren't living correctly, often down to personal opinion. You vastly overestimate how informed and educated most people were in the 1830's-1860's.

In Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, Richard Bensel explained how the North's invasion destroyed the federative polity of the founders and created a consolidated nationalist regime. This was just the sort of regime that drove the colonists to secede in 1776. It most likely would not have lasted had it not been for the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, which transformed America from a federative polity into a unitary welfare-warfare state. But the process of centralization took time. It was not until 1937 that Congress approved a national anthem for the new kind of monster state that had been in progress since 1865. And the pledge of allegiance to its flag was not approved by Congress and codified until 1942.

(Richard J. Ellis, To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance (Lawrence: University Press of Press, 2005), 116-17.)

>>17942228
Based Sherman
>you have to share food and be nice while you're laying waste to an enemy country
Get fucking real maggot. Its a war, fight it or go home.

>>17942246
Incorrect

>>17942251
Correct. The people you hold up as champions of the negro, the common man in the north, would probably stand mouth agape at the first negro he saw

>>17942251
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yfThrHJpkQ

>>17942250
>let the blacks you're freeing starve to death
Heckin based lmaoooo.

The North wanted the negro confined to the South, when they went North the North squealed like pigs under a gate.

>>17940576 (OP)
The following passage is an extract from the report of a speech, delivered at a mass meeting held at South Framingham, Massachusetts, in October, 1860, by a leading Republican senator of the North, Mr. John P. Hale, who had been the candidate of the Free-Soil party for president a few years previously:
“The South talked about dissolving the Union if Lincoln was elected. The Republican Party would elect him, just to see if they would do it. The Union was more likely to be dissolved if he was not elected.”
(Report of Boston Currier, October 12, 1860)

>>17941482
What motivated Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas to secede?

It doesn’t matter if secession was 100% over slavery. It wasn’t, but if it was…And?

Slavery was legal. Slavery was protected by the Constitution as long as slaves were considered property. Did the Cotton States not have the legal right to protect their safety from domestic terrorism, their constitutional guarantees, their property, investments, and social/economic stability?

The people of the North bought and used products made by slaves, the New England shipping industry got rich trafficking slaves, the United States government taxed and profited from slavery, the entire world utilized Southern slavery.

Isn’t everyone who gained from slavery just as guilty as the South for it?

>>17942255
Based as fuck
He even blew up a bridge before a crowd of slaves could get across and stranded them.
It was fucking war anon. We aren't the top species on this planet because we are nice.

>>17941051
He won not one southern state btw

>>17942219
>I don't take orders from maggots

quaking in my boots

>The vast majority mention slavery explicitly.

citation needed? i only know of four actual declaration-style list of grievances passed by seceding states, two of which invoke slavery explicitly and one which sort of sidesteps the issue. mississippi doesn't mention it at all and the others didn't put out a list/statement. are you counting kentucky and missouri here? maryland? delaware, sort of?

>These are all twaddle

if you don't give a shit what they said why are you on an imageboard about history? interpret their words however you want i guess, but that makes for a pretty shallow moral victory

>Tariffs and shit are not what they're bitching about

see above. you are not a righteous internet warrior, you're just an ideologue looking for easy dunks, the road to secession and civil war is more complex than le slavery. that works for a highschool textbook but cmon, use your brain a little

>>17942255
These men? Died so their white great-great-great-great-great granddaughters could fuck bbc

>>17942265
>the road to secession and civil war is more complex than le slavery.
Ignoring the most important cause (slavery) is as ignorant as claiming it was about nothing but slavery. The people at the time said as much. Ignoring them because you're a contrarian retard is peak midwit shit. The rest of your post ain't worth responding to. Try again.

>>17942272
thew most important cause of the civil war was the south's status as an agrarian economy and the north as a financial economy

>>17942264
Denying a third of your population voting rights probably doesn't help your numbers when you're trying to win a presidential election. Throwing a tantrum because you lost in such a situation is like smashing your mirror because it lets you see how fat you are

>>17942275
Not really a tantrum, the south was serious about leaving

>>17942273
And what kept that agrarian economy going?

>>17942278
Geography

>>17942277
I was serious about wanting that dinosaur toy, doesn't mean it wasn't a tantrum.

>>17942278
>dude just radically alter your entire economic and social system while funding ours btw we're also importing our much morally superior form of labor desperate starving immigrants that we will pay 1¢

Also see -- > >>17942259

>>17942279
Nope.
Turns out it's easy to make money when you don't pay your workers.

>>17942283
Are you sure? why didn't the north grow their own cotton then? Mr self reliant larper?

>>17940576 (OP)
Note that the Mississippi Declaration of Secession laments that the North, “seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.”

The call for immediate, uncompensated, emancipation, backed by terrorist threats and confinement of blacks to the South, is what most southerners feared.

>>17942285
That would be a climatological question rather than geographic one. You'll notice that the cash crops stopped paying so well after people were forced to pay the farmhands.

>>17942290
So the north relied on the south for farm exports? Slave labor?

>>17942272
>Ignoring the most important cause (slavery) is as ignorant as claiming it was about nothing but slavery

yes which is why i've used the word slavery in every post, pointed out when it was (and wasn't) used in the constitution, cornerstone speech, and the secession resolutions, and why i even stated "slavery" as a one word answer is good enough for a high school history textbook and little else

>The rest of your post ain't worth responding to

oh so you have no citations and you just pull shit out of your ass

>>17942287
>the South, is what most southerners feared.
That was the plan all along. People have tried to push on here that Lincoln was totally gonna send em back. Not after 1862 he wasn't. He needed em for his army.
Btw the Union Army was anywhere between 23-25% foreign

>>17942294
>hire foreigners to murder your citizens on their own soil
>give them carte blanche to murder, rape, torture, pillage, and burn entire towns full of people who didn’t own a single slave
>expect them to instantly forgive your administration and fall in line during military occupation where federal soldiers and mercenaries continue to terrorize them
>print money to do this and collapse entire regions into hyperinflation and shortages
>get revered for it as the best president in the country’s history
Why is American education like this?

>>17942315
The lincoln memorial was made in 1914 by italians if I remember correctly. I think it's pretty safe to say that the sheer amount of corruption the republicans displayed during the gilded age while in power soured everybody's opinions of them including lincoln to the point that it probably accelerated reconciliation

>>17940576 (OP)
Damn

>>17940578
>after the South fired upon Fort Sumter
the South had the right to defend itself, like Israel.

>>17940576 (OP)
>>17940578
>>17940579
Nice effort thread

>>17941529
It’s both. Anyone who spends even a little time studying the context and events of the war between the states arrives (or should arrive) at the conclusion that Lincoln acted as a tyrant who initiated what was basically a genocide. The southern states wanted to peacefully secede after decades of encroachment by the federal government into their affairs and their economies. The fact that Lincoln hired foreigners to slaughter southerners (most of whom never owned a single slave), including women and children, is unconscionable, especially considering that Lincoln’s own generals ordered union troops to burn innocent peoples’ homes and farmland to the ground. Lincoln and his generals knew that rape, torture, and looting of homes were occurring on a widespread basis and did nothing to stop it. The “free the slaves” initiative didn’t get going until the third year of the war, after it had gone on much longer than Lincoln had originally anticipated. Slavery was used as a post hoc justification when the original intent was to simply violently get the seceding states to rescind their secession efforts and stay with the union so that northern mercantilists wouldn’t lose cheap access to southern crops and raw materials. Lincoln also twisted the meaning of the constitution to claim that the states were never sovereign entities with their own governments that voluntarily entered into a compact with one another, but instead were basically “counties” of a singular national government and thus could not leave the union. This made no sense but, as the winner of the war, this interpretation stuck and that’s how we’re here today with a massive behemoth of a federal government.

>>17940576 (OP)
trvth nuke

>>17942329
>Italians
Italians love socialism so it checks out. Should've kept Ellis Island permanently closed