He didn't have cancer, just the decency to end his worthless, hate-filled life by blowing his own head off.
The war was over States Rights.
State's right to do what?
Lincoln didn’t give a damn about a black man. His real feelings about blacks are historical fact. He thought the white man was superior to blacks and never wanted them to have the right to vote.
Robert Lee, Jefferson Davis, Thomas Jackson, and every other Southern leader you would care to name thought whites were superior to blacks and never wanted them to vote, either. Additionally, they thought blacks were suited for slavery and nothing else. If you condemn Lincoln for his views then shouldn't your condemnation of them be even greater?
The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one.
Hundreds of thousands of slaves who left their owners and fled to Union lines would disagree with you.
Lincoln had no authority in the CSA where the majority of the slaves lived and certainly didn’t “free” any slave in border states that were fighting for the union.
Sure he did, for those states in rebellion.
All the Founding Fathers believed in the right of secession.
Quotes please? From all of them; don't miss anyone.
The only reason Jefferson Davis was not put on trial is because his trial would have shown secession was legal and Lincoln acted unconstitutionally when he sent his armies South to put down the rebellion.
Nonsense.
http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/product-reviews/1565540247
“....”The South was Right!” is dedicated to shedding light on these long-accepted beliefs. The Kennedys show that Abraham Lincoln’s sole aim was to force the seceded Southern states back into the Union, by whatever means possible, including making pitiless war against Southern civilians. They quote from speeches where Lincoln plainly stated that he was not a believer in racial equality, and that, as he said to Horace Greeley, what he did about slavery and the black race he did in order to “save the Union”. However, the Kennedys also demonstrate that the constitutional Union established by our founding fathers was actually overthrown by Lincoln’s war, not saved, and that we owe today’s aggressive, runaway federal machine to Lincoln’s ideology. Secession, as it happens, was not unconstitutional at all, but was a reserved power of the states and their people, as defined by the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. Having studied and written about the issues associated with the Constitution and secession myself, I can testify that the Kennedys’ defense of states rights and the compactual nature of the Constitution is one of the strongest parts of the book.
Overall, “The South was Right!” is a convenient single volume re-assessment of the “Civil War”, and serves well as an introductory read for those who are curious about the things most of us have been taught since elementary school. The Kennedy brothers bolster their controversial claims with an impressive battery of quotations and via extensive documentation; the book’s end notes and bibliography run thirty-six pages, combined. A number of interesting appendices are also provided.
On a critical note, I have to say that I believe the book’s overall tone borders on hostility. I understand the authors’ frustration in combating more than a century’s worth of lies and obfuscation, but I’m willing to bet that many who might otherwise be interested in the material might be tempted to dismiss it as a rant because of that tone. The issues in question here are sensitive, for many reasons, and I think they should be handled a bit more even-handedly if persuasion is the end goal. We have to remember that this is very much an ‘underdog’ approach to history, and thus those who argue in favor of it have to be more careful in their presentation, if they wish to be taken seriously. I know that many people have been positively influenced by “The South was Right!”, and I’m glad of it; however, I think that many more could have been influenced had its tone been a bit more mellow.
All in all, I highly recommend “The South was Right!” to students of history, particularly those who have caught the whiff of a strange and disturbing odor emanating from the ardent Lincoln camp. I should know; that’s how I started down the ‘revisionist’ road myself. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address didn’t make sense to me given how he proclaimed that he was fighting for “government of the people”, when the truth was that his armies were obviously fighting to deny the right of self-government to the Southern states. It seemed to me that any country based on the sanctity of self-government had no business denying that right to states that preferred to go their own way (remember the Declaration of Independence? It was really a joint ordinance of secession - and the British were quick to point that out to northerners during the war). Lincoln’s rhetoric sounded very patriotic because he claimed to be ‘defending America’, and that’s why so many continue to swallow it to this day, but it was anything but a reflection of the ideals that brought the United States of America into existence and promised to differentiate it from the other nations of the world. Lincoln’s approach could be summarized as “You can have your self-government as long as it’s this government,” and “you can have your freedom as long as it’s not freedom from us.”