Do you have any evidence for those absurd and loaded comments or are you just rebelling for rebellion's sake?
Name me a country not named the United States of America or the Confederate States of America that required war to free its slaves.
Name me just one, and I'll repent.
I won't deny that some of his actions were legally dubious, but they were certainly justified.
Villages burned. Civilians targeted. Suspension of Habeus Corpus. Enslaving young men to make them fight the South. Martial law? Heck, racism?
How do you justify any of it?
You are defending the undefendable now.
And states have no right to secede on the basis of protecting an immoral and cruel institution.
This is actually a better argument, at least it isn't laced with implicit, blind nationalism like some others. Here's my counterargument.
1. While the South did in fact secede (Primarily) to protect slavery, this was merely a circumstantial reason for the Lincolnian invasion. Not only did Lincoln claim that he didn't want to free the slaves, he actually, actively pursued an amendment that would ensure they would never be free at a Federal level. Lincoln was far, far more concerned about the "No right to secede" part than he was about the "Immoral, cruel institution" part.
2. I don't have clear cut percentages for you but its worth mentioning that not all slavery applies as "Cruel." I'd agree that its always immoral, but some slaves were treated well. So to say slavery was inherently cruel is to undermine the meaning of the word "Cruel" and those slaves who were actually abused (Some slaves were actually happy where they were, and while that's no justification, it is a mitigating factor. This wasn't the Holocaust.)
3. Even if Lincoln had waged war for the purpose of freeing the slaves (He didn't), it would be hugely hypocritical, since Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky, and New Jersey (In New Jersey it was almost extinct) also owned slaves. And Lincoln would have had a far better chance at ending slavery where he actually could (Which may or may not have also included NC, Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee, who had not yet seceded) if he had not wasted the time on a bloody war.
4. Even if the war was to free the slaves, and even if it were hypocritical, war still wouldn't be justified. Unless you think we should invade China. Some of their people are treated worse than the average slave. You can't support solving every social problem on planet earth with war. The reality is that your reasoning here is partially motivated by the fact that you still view the Old South as "Part of us". From 1861-1865, they were their own country and so we had no authority to intervene in their affairs.
Admittedly, if my argument stopped at #4, I would probably say Lincoln was a decent, but misguided, person. However, 1-3 prove that he was nothing more than a mass murdering tyrant who does not deserve admiration, let alone the worship he gets by some.
It's only a matter of time dude.
