there4eyeM
unlicensed metaphysician
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,713
- 5,326
- 280
wow, the dumb in this thread is long, wide and deep.
Only a great buffoon would consider that a split America would somehow be better.
And would have to completely ignore all the history that has occurred since.
So is it your opinion that Lincoln was correct in forcing a terrible war that killed and wounded hundreds of thousands, completely destroyed the South, and resulted in terrible racism that persisted for decades? Do you not think the war could have been avoided and the Union preserved?
The Constitution was silent on succession. This was the only way the States would join the Union and ratify the Constitution. This means any state had the right to leave the Union and this was well known up and until the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln changed all that by the force of arms...funny how tyrants regularly resort to violence to get their way.
No president was more tyrannical than Lincoln.
Lincoln forced the war? It was clear to the south that secession would not be accepted. It was at least a shared responsibility.
As was pointed out, Lincoln did not invent the inviolability of the Union. Jackson during his presidency once made a toast in the presence of Calhoun, saying, "The union; it must be preserved!"
If we accept it was a civil war, aggression is not the correct term. Any nation seeking to maintain its territorial integrity is justified to deploy troops where necessary.
The measures Lincoln took are not to our liking today. However, it is admirable that a presidential election was held in the middle of the greatest strife the US ever suffered. That it was internal is the more surprising. What other country in history has done or would have dared do such a thing?
Last edited: