Was Hoover really that bad?

No, they won't, because people understand that secession was the central factor in the Civil War, and it (secession) was spurred by Lincoln running (and winning, wihtout carrying a single Southern state) on a platform of restricting slavery, a practice to which Southerners believed that had a constitutional right. They believed the federal outlawing of slavery would harm them in two ways:

1. The tools used to abolish slavery in the new territories would be the same tools used by courts and Congress to abolish or further restrict slavery in their home territories

2. Abolishing slavery in the new territories would create more areas into which they could not travel with "their property".

It had nothing at all to do with actually expanding the practice of slavery. They were "pro slavery", not "more slavery".



In favor of the literally hundreds of other quotes in which Lincoln says he despises slavery and wants to end it, up to and including where he ends it, yes.



It was actually a war for sovereignty. Popular Sovereignty was slipped into the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which itself made quite clear its stance on the legality of slavery in the two territories. The people fighting in Kansas weren't fighting to repeal a law, or to free slaves, they were fighting to get more of their own people into the territory so that Kansas could enter the Union as a free state and be further used to abolish slavery throughout the country. Pro-slavery groups saw this happening, and tried to stop it.

It had nothing to do with actually wanting more slaves and more slave-worked land in Kansas and Nebraska, it was about wanting to wield the political might to keep slavery legal in places where it was already legal.

Time to debunk this. So now you are making the argument that this dispute wasn't based on slavery expansion but protecting the interests of existing slave owners. So they fought in Kansas For The purpose of protecting slavery in Alabama?


Bleeding Kansas
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2952.html

In an attempt to ensure that Kansas would not be a free state that would further upset the power the South had to keep slavery legal in their territories, yes.

Nothing in what you linked debunks anything.

It was never about Southern States attempting to protect slavery in existing slave states.

Except for your source which said it was.

Alternative facts at work yet again.

At the bottom it clearly and unequivocally states what the central issue involved in the Civil War happened to be.

You must have missed the part (unsurprising) which states that the ability to drive slavery into existing territories was the central issue behind the Civil War.

By denying slaveholders the right to extend their boundaries, Lincoln would in effect also be weakening their power in Washington, and over time this would almost inevitably have resulted in the abolition of slavery, as sooner or later the land would have worn out.

Another quote from your own source:



Sound familiar?

we could use a man like him again

The bottom of the article summed it all up but feel free to continue to dispute. I can find many more sources and they'd all say the same thing.


You're in essence contradicting yourself without even acknowledging as much. You are admitting that Lincoln was attempting to prevent expansion. Earlier you stated that the Civil War wasnt based on expansion.

The immediate cause of Southern secession, therefore, was a fear that Lincoln and the Republican Congress would have abolished the institution of slavery—which would have ruined fortunes, wrecked the Southern economy and left the South to contend with millions of freed blacks.

The long-term cause was a feeling by most Southerners that the interests of the two sections of the country had drifted apart, and were no longer mutual or worthwhile.

The proximate cause of the war, however, was Lincoln’s determination not to allow the South to go peacefully out of the Union, which would have severely weakened, if not destroyed, the United States.

There is the possibility that war might have been avoided, and a solution worked out, had there not been so much mistrust on the part of the South. Unfortunately, some of the mistrust was well earned in a bombastic fog of hatred, recrimination and outrageous statements and accusations on both sides. Put another way, it was well known that Lincoln was anti-slavery, but both during his campaign for office and after his election, he insisted it was never his intention to disturb slavery where it already existed. The South simply did not believe him.

LTG's own source continuing to clown him:

Ah, I see, your sources cease being your sources when they make you look like a clown. Go read your own posts, big guy, you posted an article as something that "will be ignored" which totally invalidates everything you've said in this thread, and it is hilarious.

The same article that you keep citing also referenced western territory and you chose to ignore it. This one leaves no doubt.

Oh, hey, would you look at that:



Here is LTG's own source saying the South feared outlawing slavery in the expanded territories because it would eventually be used as a tool to outlaw the practice in their own states. It had nothing to do with "expanding slavery". Thanks, buddy!

I could cite a thousand sources which all say the same thing.

Would they all directly contradict you, as well?

Less

is

more.

Yeah, I'm no JLN fan but he's toasting you.

Another quote from your own source:



Sound familiar?

why did some southern states secede from th union after the 1860 presidential election? | Yahoo Answers
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... nst_search

Stahp.

Nah. It is important not to distort history. That is what you've attempted to do.

You are pulling Yahoo answers as a serious source and you think others are "distorting history"? You quit making sense four pages ago.

I knewe the boards' senior libtard would check in at some point. the world wants to know: are you or are you note reading from cues sent to your pm inbox?




like your favorite globaliste would say, it depends on what"is' is. would he get conjugal visits once shes' locked up?



more commas?