Replies

Look, the precedence of secession had been set decades before, not just in the South but in the New England states as well. All Lincoln had to do to prevent it was compromise, just as presidents had done before him.

No precedent had been set becaus nobody have ever seceded before. Secession wasn't threatened by the Hartford Convention, it had not been seriously attempted by South Carolina. There was no precedent for it.

You don't just stop slavery in a nation overnight, you phase it out. I would've compensated the south, dispensed with the tariffs and created immigration initiatives whereby immigrant workers could have basically a free ride to the south and incentives to work the hard stuff (and let's be frank, immigrants in this country at that time pretty much built everything after slavery ended).

Three problems with that plan. The first is that there was absolutely no desire in the south to end slavery, compensated or otherwise. The second is that take away tariffs and you take away government funding, so you would have to tax something else. Add to that the fact that tariffs weren't that big a burden on the South to begin with. Finally, you've phased out slavery an dbrought in all those immigrants to do the work. What are the former slaves supposed to be doing?

Is that so hard? But nope, Lincoln had go the route of six million dead Americans in today's numbers. Holy friggin' crap. My only regret about Booth blowing his head off is that he didn't do it in 1859.

Let me point out that it was the south that initiated the war, not the North.

Look, I realize this is hard for you, but follow me on this. You're president of a federation of states, half of which are for slavery with the other half tolerating it in other states and even returning escaped slaves to their owners based on law. Sure, there are those totally dedicated to abolishing it, but they are radical, radical few. So radical in fact that to be one could get you killed.

Now then. Powers as great as yourself (Britain and the European monarchies) have been involved in the slave trade but phased it out by methods of compensation, although they still tolerate in many ways in their colonies and sugar plantations in the tropics.

You want to end slavery in your country. Do you do it by the sword, or the pen?

Clearly, the sword would be your choice. It was Lincoln's also. To the tune of a war so horrific, that all the war dead in the wars that your country will fight over the next 150 years and all the wars it fought prior to your war will still not equal to war dead of your five year war to end slavery.

Unfortunately, the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery ending for the sake of ending slavery. It was a botched attempt for the Washington power brokers (Republicans and their big money backers, northern industrialists) to seize power. It was supposed to be a walk in the park. The first major battle was fought with civilians camped out on the hills thinking it was going to be a picnic!!! After the South routed the North in that battle, Stonewall Jackson told Jefferson Davis "Give me 10,000 troops and I'll give you Washington DC."

Davis refused and wrote in his diary that it was the greatest mistake in his life. Lincoln clearly had no idea what he had wrought.

But fine, you back him up, I don't.