Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans?

[there4eyeM]

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?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The south forced the war because the leaders would not accept that they lost in a contest that followed electoral, constitutional process, and they brought war to the states and territories as a result of their inability to act as true Americans.

 

[gipper]

No price is too high to pay when sweeping aside an outdated republic and instituting a centralised leviathan state.

I think it can be well determined that the South was defending and the North was attacking. Therefore, the context of the question could be regarded as was Lincoln's goal of unity worth wasting 600,000 lives.

Get over it. The south started a war, and the north finished it. Your chosen side lost. Slavery is dead as is the Confederacy. The United States of America is where we live, if you do not like that, there is no law keeping you here.

Wrong. The North started the war or more specifically Lincoln started the war. He set up the events leading to the firing on Fort Sumter (funny how tyrannical politicians like involving us in war...see Wilson and FDR).

The war could have easily been avoided had Lincoln backed off his tariff demands on Southern goods. But, tyrants don't avoid war they want war. Total war and total state go together very nicely.

 

[SayMyName]

Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans Just to Preserve the Union?

Yes. It was worth it. It was also worth ridding the nation of the institution of slavery.

But the civil war didn't do that. The slaves in the north were not freed until AFTER the civil war, they were exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact, the EP didn't apply to any slaves the north actually had control over. It exempted all slaves in northern states and in southern states already under the north's control. I never understood why Lincoln got credit for freeing the slaves since he didn't free anyone he actually had control over.

But the end result was the same. In the end, all the slaves were freed, and the Union maintained. How Lincoln did it, only shows his masterful hand at the position he held.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deflection. Tariff had very little do with Lincoln or the war. The south's fear of Lincoln's supposed abolition drove it to violate the Constitution, leap into tyranny and treason, and the execution of states' rights at the hand of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.

I think it can be well determined that the South was defending and the North was attacking. Therefore, the context of the question could be regarded as was Lincoln's goal of unity worth wasting 600,000 lives.

Get over it. The south started a war, and the north finished it. Your chosen side lost. Slavery is dead as is the Confederacy. The United States of America is where we live, if you do not like that, there is no law keeping you here.

Wrong. The North started the war or more specifically Lincoln started the war. He set up the events leading to the firing on Fort Sumter (funny how tyrannical politicians like involving us in war...see Wilson and FDR).

The war could have easily been avoided had Lincoln backed off his tariff demands on Southern goods. But, tyrants don't avoid war they want war. Total war and total state go together very nicely.

 

[there4eyeM]

Well, you're all wrong and I, as usual, am totally correct!

OK, just joshin'.

 

[Againsheila]

Well, you're all wrong and I, as usual, am totally correct!

OK, just joshin'.

Hey, everyone is entitled to my opinion.

 

[there4eyeM]

Well, you're all wrong and I, as usual, am totally correct!

OK, just joshin'.

Hey, everyone is entitled to my opinion.

I'll keep that in mind (thus stating I have one!).

 

[gipper]

Wrong. Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery. He had no intention of abolishing it. In fact, at one time, he proposed deporting all blacks back to Africa.

The Constitution did not prevent ANY state from leaving the Union. None of the States would have ratified the Constitution without the ability to secede. The Constitution is silent on secession. So, the South did not commit treason as you foolishly claim.

In fact, most northern newspaper editors knew at the time that secession was legal and wanted to let the South secede rather than go to war. Lincoln chose war to impose his tyrannical aims. Most disgusting. The terrible suffering he caused must never be forgotten.

The War of Northern Aggression was a terrible mistake prosecuted by a tyrant (Dishonest Abe). It was entirely unnecessary.

Deflection. Tariff had very little do with Lincoln or the war. The south's fear of Lincoln's supposed abolition drove it to violate the Constitution, leap into tyranny and treason, and the execution of states' rights at the hand of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.

Get over it. The south started a war, and the north finished it. Your chosen side lost. Slavery is dead as is the Confederacy. The United States of America is where we live, if you do not like that, there is no law keeping you here.

Wrong. The North started the war or more specifically Lincoln started the war. He set up the events leading to the firing on Fort Sumter (funny how tyrannical politicians like involving us in war...see Wilson and FDR).

The war could have easily been avoided had Lincoln backed off his tariff demands on Southern goods. But, tyrants don't avoid war they want war. Total war and total state go together very nicely.

 

[Unkotare]

Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans Just to Preserve the Union?

"Just" to preserve the Union?

 

[Unkotare]

The War of Northern Aggression

You mean the American Civil War.

 

[Unkotare]

The war could have easily been avoided .

Don't be ridiculous. The war was a very, very long time coming.

 

[Sallow]

Wrong. Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery. He had no intention of abolishing it. In fact, at one time, he proposed deporting all blacks back to Africa.
The Constitution did not prevent ANY state from leaving the Union. None of the States would have ratified the Constitution without the ability to secede. The Constitution is silent on secession. So, the South did not commit treason as you foolishly claim.

In fact, most northern newspaper editors knew at the time that secession was legal and wanted to let the South secede rather than go to war. Lincoln chose war to impose his tyrannical aims. Most disgusting. The terrible suffering he caused must never be forgotten.

The War of Northern Aggression was a terrible mistake prosecuted by a tyrant (Dishonest Abe). It was entirely unnecessary.

Deflection. Tariff had very little do with Lincoln or the war. The south's fear of Lincoln's supposed abolition drove it to violate the Constitution, leap into tyranny and treason, and the execution of states' rights at the hand of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.

Wrong. The North started the war or more specifically Lincoln started the war. He set up the events leading to the firing on Fort Sumter (funny how tyrannical politicians like involving us in war...see Wilson and FDR).

The war could have easily been avoided had Lincoln backed off his tariff demands on Southern goods. But, tyrants don't avoid war they want war. Total war and total state go together very nicely.

This is half right..and only for a short while.

Lincoln always wanted to do away with slavery..and thought that blacks in this country could be relocated to Liberia.

But he changed his views.

And the Constitution prevents all states from leaving the Union.

Fucking read it every once in a while.

 

[gipper]

Wrong. Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery. He had no intention of abolishing it. In fact, at one time, he proposed deporting all blacks back to Africa.
The Constitution did not prevent ANY state from leaving the Union. None of the States would have ratified the Constitution without the ability to secede. The Constitution is silent on secession. So, the South did not commit treason as you foolishly claim.

In fact, most northern newspaper editors knew at the time that secession was legal and wanted to let the South secede rather than go to war. Lincoln chose war to impose his tyrannical aims. Most disgusting. The terrible suffering he caused must never be forgotten.

The War of Northern Aggression was a terrible mistake prosecuted by a tyrant (Dishonest Abe). It was entirely unnecessary.

Deflection. Tariff had very little do with Lincoln or the war. The south's fear of Lincoln's supposed abolition drove it to violate the Constitution, leap into tyranny and treason, and the execution of states' rights at the hand of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.

This is half right..and only for a short while.

Lincoln always wanted to do away with slavery..and thought that blacks in this country could be relocated to Liberia.

But he changed his views.

And the Constitution prevents all states from leaving the Union.

Fucking read it every once in a while.

Too funny...yeah Lincoln cared so much about the Constitution that he ignored it entirely for his entire presidency. Ever heard of habeas corpus?

If he cared about slavery, why would he free ONLY the slaves in the southern states (which had no effect) with his initial Emancipation Proclamation, which by the way, did NOT outlaw slavery and did NOT make the freed slaves citizens?

The proclamation was made by executive order and as such, not approved by Congress...sort of similar to the tyrannical executive orders we see presidents doing today.

Can you please tell me where in the Constitution it prevents states from seceding?

 

[Againsheila]

Wrong. Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery. He had no intention of abolishing it. In fact, at one time, he proposed deporting all blacks back to Africa.
The Constitution did not prevent ANY state from leaving the Union. None of the States would have ratified the Constitution without the ability to secede. The Constitution is silent on secession. So, the South did not commit treason as you foolishly claim.

In fact, most northern newspaper editors knew at the time that secession was legal and wanted to let the South secede rather than go to war. Lincoln chose war to impose his tyrannical aims. Most disgusting. The terrible suffering he caused must never be forgotten.

The War of Northern Aggression was a terrible mistake prosecuted by a tyrant (Dishonest Abe). It was entirely unnecessary.

Deflection. Tariff had very little do with Lincoln or the war. The south's fear of Lincoln's supposed abolition drove it to violate the Constitution, leap into tyranny and treason, and the execution of states' rights at the hand of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.

This is half right..and only for a short while.

Lincoln always wanted to do away with slavery..and thought that blacks in this country could be relocated to Liberia.

But he changed his views.

And the Constitution prevents all states from leaving the Union.

Fucking read it every once in a while.

I read it, but I must have misunderstood. Please show me where it prevents states from leaving?

 

[gipper]

[/QUOTE]I read it, but I must have misunderstood. Please show me where it prevents states from leaving?[/QUOTE]

Yeah..really...please show us.

How about this from your beloved Lincoln...he REALLY changed his tune on slavery...yeah right!!!

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

~ Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.

 

[Unkotare]

If he cared about slavery, why would he free ONLY the slaves in the southern states (which had no effect) with his initial Emancipation Proclamation, which by the way, did NOT outlaw slavery and did NOT make the freed slaves citizens?

Make up your mind, do you want the Constitution followed or not? He did not have the authority to either outlaw slavery outright or make freed slaves citizens.

 

[gipper]

If he cared about slavery, why would he free ONLY the slaves in the southern states (which had no effect) with his initial Emancipation Proclamation, which by the way, did NOT outlaw slavery and did NOT make the freed slaves citizens?

Make up your mind, do you want the Constitution followed or not? He did not have the authority to either outlaw slavery outright or make freed slaves citizens.

Your response is most disingenuous.

Lincoln failed to follow the Constitution in nearly everything he did. Is issuing an executive order that has no effect, constitutional?

This from the great Ph.D. Thomas DiLorenzo

The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda strategy designed to deter England from supporting the Confederacy. It came as a complete surprise to most
Northerners, who thought they were fighting and dying by the tens of thousands to preserve the union. As a result, there were draft riots in New York City; a desertion crisis was created in the U.S. army, with some 200,000 deserters, according to historian Gary Gallagher; and war bond sales plummeted. According to James McPherson, the "dean" of "Civil War" historians, Union soldiers "were willing to risk their lives for the Union, but not for black freedom . . . . They professed to feel betrayed."

Slavery was ended in 1866 with the Thirteenth Amendment, but at the cost of 620,000 lives; hundreds of thousands more that were crippled for life; and the near destruction of almost half the nation’s economy. By contrast, dozens of other countries (including Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela) ended slavery peacefully during the first 60 years of the nineteenth century. Why not the U.S.?

Lincoln may have "saved" the Union in a geographic sense, but his war destroyed the union defined as a voluntary association of states. Forcing a state to remain in the union at gunpoint renders that state a conquered province, not a genuine partner. This was the overwhelming sentiment of Northern opinion makers at the outset of the war.

https://mises.org/daily/607/

 

[Unkotare]

If he cared about slavery, why would he free ONLY the slaves in the southern states (which had no effect) with his initial Emancipation Proclamation, which by the way, did NOT outlaw slavery and did NOT make the freed slaves citizens?

Make up your mind, do you want the Constitution followed or not? He did not have the authority to either outlaw slavery outright or make freed slaves citizens.

Your response is most disingenuous.]

My response was accurate. Your attitude is hypocritical.

 

[Unkotare]

Is issuing an executive order that has no effect, constitutional?

]

It was not without effect, of course.