Just so we are clear. Was the secession of the South about slavery expansion or not?

I have plenty of books by plenty of Historians that will say exactly the same thing. Which ones do you want me to cite?

Since Lincoln quotes seem to be the order of the day lets examine one taken shortly after secession.

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy that there is no cause for such fears"

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

[

He was against Western expansion of slavery. He may have hated slavery, but he did little eradicate it.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

John Brown heard voices in his head.

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 influence history. He won the Civil War. With the advantage enjoyed by the North he should have. I will give him credit for that. 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 slavery would have ended?

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?