Replies

The South did not trust Mr. Lincoln. They thought him overly ambitious, the kind that absolute power would corrupt absolutely - the kind that would raise an army, invade soverign states on a pretext, suspend the habius corpus, imprision political foes, ignore the supreme court, suppress newspapers, fight a total war on civilians, and kill hundreds of thousands. Of course, what did the South know?

...the kind that would raise an army, invade soverign states on a pretext, suspend the habius corpus, imprision political foes, ignore the supreme court, suppress newspapers, fight a total war on civilians, and kill hundreds of thousands. Of course, what did the South know?

I thought we were talking about Lincoln, not davis.

I’ve been reading and listening to books about Lincoln for some time now, and I’m really curious what incidents in his past you think would have led the South to this conclusion.

I believe the reason Lincoln was objectionable was not anything in his past or known character, at least I’m unaware of anybody voicing such, but rather his being the candidate of an explicitly anti-slavery, or rather anti expansion of slavery party. The first to win, that is. Previous anti-slavery candidates had mostly just split the opposition and elected Democrats.

If you have evidence of southern opposition to him based on his conduct or character, as opposed to his appearance and what they thought were his qualifications, I’d like to see it.

I know of no reason at all to believe that any other Republican candidate would have been any more acceptable to the South.

The South did not trust Mr. Lincoln. They thought him overly ambitious, the kind that absolute power would corrupt absolutely - the kind that would raise an army, invade soverign states on a pretext, suspend the habius corpus, imprision political foes, ignore the supreme court, suppress newspapers, fight a total war on civilians, and kill hundreds of thousands. Of course, what did the South know?

It's the same thing over and over again. Are you finally going to acknowledge that Jefferson Davis and his team were "government guys" and nation builders who weren't above raising an army, invading neighboring states (Kentucky, Maryland), suspending habeus corpus, imprisoning political foes, seizing and destroying property, waging war on civilians, carrying free people off to slavery, and killing hundreds of thousands?

They were what? Hobbits? Little harmless elves? They were a government. They had all of the aggressive and repressive tendencies and drives you see in other governments and then some. A lot of Southerners (admittedly and sadly too few) and most other Americans didn't trust them any more than they trusted pro-Union politicians.

Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, one government to another government. Don't assume it was a matter of libertarian anti-government rebels crushed by the state. There were two governments involved and "tyranny" -- if that's what it was -- wasn't unique to the US government.