It was about the South's right to have slaves. Both slavery and states' rights.
This may be true for the South (Although for the Upper South it was "We don't want to shoot our countrymen and we don't want you to do so either") but it is an absolute, abhorrent lie that this was why the North fought. The North had slaves too (And not just the draft.)
Read my post. It's called Feudalism and serfs are slaves.
While accurate based on my fairly broad definition of slavery (Any non-voluntary arrangement) it does not work by any definition that does not also include the draft.
The French and Russian revolutions sought the abolish serfdom and thus were wars fought over slavery. They also killed tons more people than the US civil war did. But those are simply two conflicts. And any conflict that revolved around slavery that resulted in extreme violence (this includes countless slave revolts) fulfills your criteria and thus mandates that you "repent."
Fair enough
It's good to know that you admittedly employ silly argumentative tactics.
I was being rhetorical to illustrate the point.
1.) The bolded part was all you needed to say. He wasn't a dictator. End of discussion.
He was close enough.
2.) Arresting politicians in one state as a means of protecting order and preventing the secessionists plague from spreading is far from autocratic. There is no connection.
Of course it is autocratic! It is an undermining of the Democratic process.
Oh, you don't know if he was truly fascist but you somehow know that he was not only evil, but he drank blood (you did say "not rhetorical").
Oh you
I was still obviously being metaphorical (Not rhetorical) with the "Bloodthirsty" part. He loved war, and he was a white supremacist too. Now he's almost sounding like Hitler
That's an exaggeration, of course, but Lincoln was indeed quite vile. To kill 600,000 people in order to trample on the principle of self-government is EVIL.
If this entire debate hinges on whether the draft is slavery than you've already lost. I'm certainly not a supporter of conscription, but calling it slavery is ridiculous at best. Slaves are bought and sold and receive no compensation. Drafted soldiers are payed and only serve for several months (vs. their entire lives). You can't conclude from the draft that Lincoln enslaved people and thus this argument falls flat.
Yeah, and some soldiers die in the draft and never get to go home.
If you want to argue that African slavery was worse than the draft, you are not going to get an argument from me. But involuntary servitude is still slavery. Your "Paid" is irrelevant unless you think serfs aren't slaves.
It's not even the same thing in any way and you know it. Quit wasting time with ridiculous arguments. See above.
Its actually worse, except for those slaves that were actually owned by Confederate officials. Any other slavery, the Confederacy (And the Union) allowed to happen, but did not actaully do themselves. The draft is done BY the government. Doing something is always worse than merely turning a blind eye. Killing someone is worse than not following a good samaritan law.
Lincoln took numerous measures to avoid the war but it proved inevitable. He wasn't warmongering.
How about pulling out of the base on CSA territory?
Instead, Lincoln continued arming it.
The South was stupid to attack Ft. Sumter, but only because Lincoln held the larger army. But the CSA was entirely justified in driving the Union off of land owned by the CSA.
The South did not want to conquer the North. To say they did is merely absurd.
Lincoln just cared more about "Saving the Union" than the rights of either the states or the slaves. There was not one bone of good in his body. He loved power and Empire, not freedom.
I'll look that up when I'm done
Ex parte Milligan ruled that: "Trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is only constitutional when there is no power left but the military, and the military may only validly try criminals as long as is absolutely necessary."
Tell me where in the Constitution ANY such military trial is constitutional? Otherwise, the Federal government cannot legally try anyone for anything as per the tenth amendment. If a SCOTUS judge said otherwise, he's either a Federal powermongerer or an idiot.
I already addressed the draft matter.
Not just the draft. Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey (In small numbers), Kentucky, and Missouri all owned slaves, the same way the CSA did.
1.) There's no evidence to support that they were treated well. Slave owners could murder their slaves and no one would give a damn. Do you think that a local constable would try and arrest a wealthy aristocrat for killing a slave?
Of course not. But to kill 600,000 people to protect that one slave, or rather, to revise history 150 years later to make a nationalist war out to protect that slave, is absurd.
I'm not denying that the South was a horrible society here. But at least they didn't start a war.
2.) Slave revolts scared the local populations in such a way that it made almost any cruel punishment justifiable under the premise that the owner was merely trying discipline his "negro".
See 9/11 today. Same thing happened, except at least under slavery, again, the government was merely neglegent rather than itself a criminal.
Fortunately, it probably wasn't economically beneficial to murder a slave but he still had the freedom to do so, along with the numerous other punishments he could impose.
Of course, again "Slavery is evil" is not the argument. "Lincoln was evil" is.
1.)You don't need the Holocaust to justify military action. The widespread violation of rights that was the institution of slavery suffices.
Should we have invaded Iraq? If you say yes, then you still aren't really proving my point wrong, you are just throwing your own lot with the warmongerers.
If you say no, then why was an invasion of the CSA OK? Considering Iraq was actually committing some level of genocide, while the CSA was not actually committing genocide? Either its because you don't believe the CSA was a country, which proves my point that the war was for purely nationalistic purposes and not for slavery to end, you merely agree with the nationalism. Thus you are being deliberately dishonest by continuing to argue the slave point. The alternative is that you should say that while the CSA was evil they should never have been invaded, and that if Lincoln wanted to help the slaves he should have tried to end it in his own country, the United States of America (Which had seven less states at that point) instead.
2.) Let's talk about the part I bolded. What actions should be taken to ensure that these conditions are met?
Any action whatsoever in the South. Eventually technology would have rendered slavery mostly obsolete and it would have been outlawed. But I also had no issue with slaves who specifically targeted violence at their masters, ran away, or even the use of the CSA's own democratic process to end the institution. But I do not support a foreign invasion of their country in order to make it end, to dictate their policy, and doubly not when annexation, not humanitarianism, is the goal.
I'm going to ignore this unless you can explain what any of this has to do with Lincoln being evil.
It has everything to do with it. If some other country invaded us for those reasons we would consider the bloodthirsty warmongerer who did so to be an evil man for ruining the lives of innocent people through an occupation of our country, even if they claimed rightfully that the US Government is evil, the rest of us are not necessarily and our lives should not be ruined by an invading army because of criminals like Bush, Obama, and Lincoln.
Okay, now I'm going to talk about what this argument is about. It primarily lies with your statement that Lincoln was evil and that the South was right to sucede. You claim Lincoln was evil because he limited the rights of people in a few instances during the war. This includes the suspension of habeus corpus and the draft. But the draft is not slavery and these rights limitations were necessary to fight the gigantic military conflict that was the civil war. Following the war's conclusion all rights were restored except for the non existent right of southern states to own people. Ultimately, Lincoln was neither evil but acting with the best intentions.
Necessary to invade a soveregn country out of nationalism?
Federal supremacy has been virtually assumed since then so there have been very real consequences to this evil Lincolnian war.
And how the crap do you know his intentions except by what he said? Like when he said he would fight to preserve the Union even if it meant not saving a single slave?
I don't care if you think the CSA was Hitler, invading them
In order to prevent them from seceding (As opposed to a humanitarian reason) is the very definition of evil. And that's what Lincoln was. Had the South won the war, Lincoln would rightfully have been executed. Were Obama to invade Iran because of its theocracy, the world would still rightfully condemn him as a warmongerer. Bush is already hated by pretty much everyone for his own wars. Yet Lincoln is basically worshipped as a god at this point. Lincoln gets a free pass. Why?
