WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Apparently he didn't or much of anything else related to the period. Neither have you for that matter.
You pass yourself off as this great historian, but you regularly get your facts wrong. In this thread you project that Lincoln did not care about slavery despite: it being the dominate issue of his era, the fact that he literally said "A house divided cannot stand" and his election being enough for the South to rebel before he even took any actions. You then started that you did not care about his thoughts, just his actions, which were to end slavery.
Your problems with facts did not start in this thread either, you stated that Hitler won a majority democratic victory in Germany in a previous thread.
Rather than call others ignorant why not just stick to what occurred in history, and the best we know is that Lincoln did not approve of slavery and he won a war to end it. Speculation as to what he would have done had the South not rebelled is just that. And claims to know his true feelings and motivations based on his political speeches is sloppy history at best.
Facts that were established which were ignored:
1. Emancipation came 2 years after the war began and excluded slave states not fighting alongside of the confederacy.
Lincoln waited until the North appeared to be winning the war. It would have zero impact if the North did not win the war, thus he had to wait until a victory to announce it.2. The Civil War was based on the South's desire to place slavery in Western Territories
It was a direct response to the election of Lincoln. Declarations to leave the Union do not mention the territories. They complain that the North is against their right to hold slaves: http://www.civilwar.org/education/histo ... oogle.com/. 3. Lincoln and Union initially ignored slavery for fear that it would alienate Northerners opposed to fighting for blacks.
Lincoln said he could not win the war without Kentucky. He also thought it would be politically advantageous to get the North united behind the cause of union first. That seemed to work out. 4. Lincoln and the quotes that you cited merely state some opposition to slavery. It doesn't mean that he sought to end it. He never did contrary to all of the pontificating existing right now. I never stated that he was for slavery. He never felt strongly enough to seek and end to it. Nas cited a quote which perfectly illustrates how he felt about the issue and you completely ignored it. You have ignored just about everything else relative to the subject yet you claim that I have my facts wrong.
He literally did end it. Thus at some point as President he sought to end it. You have a political speech because he was afraid of war. Any reasonable man would at least dread the prospect of war. 5. I also cited the movement to make Cuba a slave state.
Has nothing to do with this debate. Of course planters desires to expand their power.6. Preventing slavery from expanding not ending it was the dominant issue of the 1850's
This is false. The Fugitive Slave Act and the North's failure to enforce it was as least as big of an issue. Slavery was the topic. Expansion was a subset of the larger issue. Which facts do I have wrong?
2 is not a fact. 5 has nothing to do with this. 6 is wrong. Its funny how you conveniently slant everything to fit some narrative that you have. If you can I would like for you to tell which one of these "facts" am I wrong about?
As far as me trying to present myself as some sort of "historian" as you suggest I'm comfortable. I'm comfortable with what I know and I'm comfortable in what i don't know.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
