Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
In the same manner the Nazis launched a campaign of mockery and ridicule at the Polish people who gave them so much trouble in pacifying Poland, so too do the Northeastern "elites" who control Washington DC still to this day mock people who once opposed their draconian control of our government.
It is ongoing and constant propaganda, and it has worked for them for the last 150 years.
When your premise is flawed, there is no reasonable way to answer it. Davis did not start the war. Abraham Lincoln deliberately started the war.
But had Lincoln done nothing, there would have been no war. All he had to do was sit on his hands and leave those other people alone, but he couldn't even do that. He had to meddle, just as Liberals always have to meddle with other people.
No. The guy that took the first swing started it.
Something like 2,400 people killed and many billions of dollars of ships and infrastructure destroyed, and you are comparing it to the sanguine eviction of occupiers from Sumter?
You've gone round the Pearl Harbor bend. Anyone who compares the two things is not a rational person. They have no grasp of scale.
Corporate corruption was a thing back in 1860, and I will remind everyone that Lincoln was an unethical corporate railroad lawyer at the time.
He used his railroad connections to transport thousands of astroturf "supporters" into the Chicago convention in 1860. That's how the crooked SOB got the nomination over nationally recognized and nationally favored William Seward.
He also used threats and bribery against the convention delegates. There is a lot of ugly stuff about Lincoln that people nowadays have never learned.
Big city Liberals have always had a desire to force people to do what they want at the point of a bayonet. They share this tendency with every despotic government in history.
They could not. In the 1860 election Lincoln won 15 states with absolute majorities for a total of 173 of his 180 electoral votes. Only 152 were needed to win.
no buyers, no sellers. There has to be a market for the product to make it worth selling.
So you keep saying. Your opinion is duly noted but I'll go with history.
All he had to do was sit on his hands and leave those other people alone, but he couldn't even do that.
And let them be starved into surrender, thus capitulating to Davis as central_va wanted him to.
Any other asinine analogies you would like to submit?
So if the Japanese had bombed the faclities and sunk the ships but through some miracle nobody had been killed then would you say, as central_va seems to believe, that Roosevelt should have declared a cease fire and request negotiations? Or should he have pursued the war that had been forced upon him?
“But had Lincoln done nothing, there would have been no war”
Over Sumter, yes. What about Fort Pickens at Pensacola.
It was resupplied, fully manned and quite capable of a vigorous defense. Would Davis have allow it to sit there under U.S. ownership?
My opinion is, at some point, Davis would have moved against Pickens. What do you think?
Sure they could have !
You are just combining the actual votes received.
You are not looking at what the effects of a combined and unified campaign would have had on the votes and the election outcome.
They lost a massive amount of campaign time and good will just by having a failed convention!
Both factions had to hold a second convention to select their nominees.
That would sap a lot of energy, money and time out of their respective campaigns.
Thank you sir !
It is quite clear that the democrats were going to wage a war.
Had President Lincoln done ‘nothing’ - then the democrats would have taken Washington.
Would the democrats be satisfied with the States that they had? Nope.
You had the chief instigator - former VP, now Kentucky Senator - actively engaged in conspiring with the Kentucky governor/ leadership to get Kentucky to leave the Union.
…
“ Whereas John C. Breckinridge, a member of this body from the State of Kentucky, has joined the enemies of his country, and is now in arms against the Government he had sworn to support:
Therefore, Resolved, That the said John C. Breckinridge, the traitor, be, and he is hereby, expelled from the Senate.
That same day, the Senate voted 36 to 0 to pass the resolution as amended and expel Breckinridge.”
You’re being disingenuous, as usual. The war began when the eleven southern states seceded and formed the Confederacy. Their reason for doing so was the preservation of slavery. The Southerners said so at the time. Specifically the election of Abraham Lincoln was declared intolerable even before the election. Hostilities began with the firing on Fort Sumter.
The North, in 1861, fought to preserve the Union. By the end of the war the abolition of slavery had been added as an ultimate goal. But the Confederacy started the war. The reason was slavery.
Analogies or otherwise, it’s always asinine.
Look at the states where it was only Lincoln vs Douglas and the states where it was Lincoln vs. Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell and the total Democrat vote isn't all that different. It's not like the Bell or Breckenridge supporters were voting for Lincoln when their man wasn't on the ballot.
Won't be drug abuse without drug supply.
Good, then you're finally giving up that crap we've all been brainwashed with for over 150 years. Good to hear.
And let them be starved into surrender, thus capitulating to Davis as central_va wanted him to.
They took the place by force. They never should have been there in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.