Those books are called secondary sources, and I have no doubt you can find a book on the thousands on the subject that says almost anything. The statements of secession were posted earlier. Those are primary sources. They did not say that we are leaving because Lincoln will prevent slavery in the West. They said they believed the federal government was going to restrict their rights. Even if it was about expansion to the West (which was not stated), that was because it meant decreased political power at the federal level hence the loss of slavery in their own states. So I do not know what you are arguing anymore. Do you?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

You don't care about what he said. Just what he did. Your words. Won the war. Ended slavery.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

America Empire of Liberty. Page 149. "At this stage Lincoln was no abolitionist (February, 1961). He had two basic aims: no further expansion of slavery into the West and preservation of the United States". Lincoln went out of his way to let the Southern States know that he wasn't interested in killing slavery.



Here is the idiocy in all of this ad I readily admit my role in this trust me I do.

You have the Missouri Compromise. Texas War for Independence. Compromise of 1850. Kansas/Nebraska skirmish all addressing the issue of slavery expansion and the tenuous nature involved in it.


You have the Crittenden compromise, which was a last ditch effort at averting war by allowing extension of slavery West as long as it fell under 36' 30". You have all of these things suggesting that it was about Western expansion yet it really wasnt if you believe what''s written here.

_________________

Slavery ended on his watch because Southern society was destroyed. If Lincoln could maintain unity while preserving slavery he would. His words supported by his actions.

_________________

Same thing I was arguing before. How is this for primary source and "not making sense" clearly states the historical reasons for secession. Also a primary sourced document.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp


Here is the inherent contradiction of what you along with JLN have been arguing. The Republican Party was created as an anti-slavery political party dedicated to restricting the expansion of slavery. That was part of their mission statement if memory serves correctly.

_________________

That document is barely readable. Line breaks would be nice, and we have already posted it before. You keep harping on Western Expansion. What was the end game on that? It was to break slavery legally through democratic means. Politicians make promises all the time. Do you think Lincoln, a northerner of humble origins, really cared about maintaining the power of the Southern Planter class? Do you think he desired slavery to continue? Clearly the answer is no. He wanted to find a peaceful way to end it. Before he could even try, the South rebelled, and Lincoln won the war and freed the slaves.

You want to get into a guessing game about what would have happened without Southern actions is pure speculation, and has nothing to do with historical fact.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

He destroyed Southern society by leading the war effort. Lincoln also was the South's reason to go to war because they rightfully believed that he was going to try to restrict slavery at the very least. Why is what happened less important than what you feel would have happened?

Where does Lincoln rank on your list of presidents?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

This is where the disconnect occurs (among many others). I'm not saying that he was an advocate for slavery. He wasn't an I previously stated that in my opinion he was at best ambivalent. Lincoln was perfectly content to play the war of attrition game with respect to slavery. He was against Western expansion of slavery. He may have hated slavery, but he did little eradicate it.


Being Anti Slavery is quit different than being an abolitionist.

As far as reasons for Secession the Georgia delegation late the argument out perfectly. They Clearly stated that their reasons for seceding were related to North''s historical opposition with regards to expansion.

1960 platform also clearly addresses the issue to.

1860 National Presidential Election Platforms
http://www.ushist.com/general-informati ... orms.shtml


Republican Platform of 1856
http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention ... atform.htm

_________________

Top five given what he dealt with.

FDR is No.1
Washington #2
Eisenhower #3
Lincoln #4

LBJ#5

_________________

Except for win a war that, intentionally or unintentionally, eradicated slavery.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

FDR was way too soft on the commies. WAY too soft.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

The bolded part is a flat out lie. He literally ended slavery.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

So it was fine to own slaves and ensure slavery would continue, but actually ending slavery doesn't count.

And Eisenhower? He was the leader of the most powerful country in the history of the world. And he let the military industrial complex take over. He knew he messed up as he was leaving office.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Eisenhower shrunk the military big league in his 8 years in office, which was promptly reversed by JFK and LBJ. So yeah, not really.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

lol, long time guy diggin' deep into Yahoo Answers for this one. Maybe now we'll get the answer to "how is babby formed"

_________________

He had a lot of them inside his administration.

_________________

Your facts are off on Eisenhower. As far as Washington goes he gets the "prevailing thought" nod on that one. Eisenhower's share of the miliary budget was much lower than Presidents which succeeded him and he also got us out of the disastrous Korean War.

As far as Lincoln goes his role in ending slavery was minimal. Circumstances dictated that slavery was going to end much more than anything he did. He didn't even want to fight the damn war. Tried to reassure Southern slaveowners even after they'd seceded.

_________________

I'll get my answers to anywhere I can find them. Yahoo is a very credible source for information.

_________________

He unintentionally entered the war. If he'd sought out war as John Brown did then I'd be celebrating him more.

_________________

John Brown heard voices in his head.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Ah, so that's why historical texts refer to him as "The Viper".

Grant gets a bad wrap due to the scandals that kept popping up with his administration, but it was the beginning of the Gilded Age, and money started influencing politics like never before. He also tried to pick up Lincoln's ideas for reconstruction that Johnson had shit on at every turn being that he was a white supremacist.

Grant did a lot to protect the rights of freed slaves as well as to work with Native Americans that he believed were being treated horribly. Unfortunately, he's been painted as a weak drunk which couldn't be further from the truth.

/Grant rant

Also, Elmhurst Steve think Jefferson Davis should be on the list.

There was not military decrease in the 50s: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=539

The US was building warheads like crazy: https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons/

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Scooter of presidential history

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Why does Washington get that prevailing thought nod, but not Lincoln, who used political talk to get into office then ended slavery.

If the bolded part is true it means that individuals have no influence on history. Is that your argument?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

IN the case of Washington he gets a pass because he was the president of a fledgling country. It is difficult to get past his ownership of slaves. I try to focus on his stewardship of a nation literally in its infancy.


Lincoln had very little influence over slavery ending. Individuals can influence history. In his case he won a war he wasn't interested in fighting.

He won the Civil War. Gets credit for that but with the advantage enjoyed by the North he should have. The War ended slavery.

I know this is alternative history but let me ask you this.

If the the War had ended quickly and the South weren't ravaged do you believe that Lincoln would have ended slavery?

_________________

We all do

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

If the North won a war slavery was toast. As soon as the South went to war that was the stakes. There was not going to be a quick war for a Northern victory. States would have fought on even if the North took over say Virginia. The only way for a short war was a Southern victory.

But in your scenario, why do you think the North would say no worries keep this terrible practice even though you went to war?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Yes. Northerners weren't interested in competing with former slaves for jobs. They were always opposed to the expansion of slavery not the system. The abolitionist movement was never as strong as has been portrayed. Even they weren't in favor of equality. Most abolitionists believed in black inferiority. As long as slavery was viewed as that "peculiar institution" employed by Southerners they were fine.

_________________