[DiogenesLamp]

Please take note too how many normals revere him as well. That should tell you something right there.

He's been deified on our coinage, and everyone thinks he sacrificed to free Slaves. If they knew the truth, that he launched a horrible and bloody war to keep the money flowing into New York and Washington DC, they would not think so kindly of him.

But as usual, the Liberals control the flow of news and publishing and they keep out information they don't want the public to know.

For example, it wasn't until I visited the Lincoln memorial in 2009 that I realized he was willing to keep slavery. I saw it engraved on stone tablets at that memorial, and that woke me up a lot.

All my life I had heard that Lincoln fought the South to abolish slavery, and then I see he considered this point negotiable? If it's negotiable, it wasn't a principle for which men should have died. It was an option.

Fighting an optional war is immoral.

[Sans-Culotte]

All my life I had heard that Lincoln fought the South to abolish slavery, and then I see he considered this point negotiable? If it's negotiable, it wasn't a principle for which men should have died. It was an option. Fighting an optional war is immoral.

Who cares what you heard all your life about the war being fought to free the slaves? The war was fought to preserve the Union. If he could have preserved the Union without freeing the slaves, he would taken that deal as long as he could preserve the Union.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "He's been deified on our coinage, and everyone thinks he sacrificed to free Slaves.
If they knew the truth, that he launched a horrible and bloody war to keep the money flowing into New York and Washington DC, they would not think so kindly of him."

And so DiogenesLamp spins out his entire reimagined anti-historical fantasy.
In fact, Republicans as a party were founded in opposition to slavery, a view Lincoln strongly held.
The Republican 1860 platform called for restrictions on slavery and that was the chief, if not only, reason cited by Deep South secessionists in their Reasons for Secession documents.

In fact, neither Lincoln nor any other Republican official cited keeping "the money flowing into New York and Washington DC" as their reason for any action related to Civil War.

DiogenesLamp: "it wasn't until I visited the Lincoln memorial in 2009 that I realized he was willing to keep slavery. I saw it engraved on stone tablets at that memorial, and that woke me up a lot. "

Even in early 1865 Lincoln was willing to strike a deal to prevent further bloodshed, a deal much better than the Unconditional Surrender Jefferson Davis fought on & on & on to achieve:

DiogenesLamp: "If it's negotiable, it wasn't a principle for which men should have died. It was an option.
Fighting an optional war is immoral."

Jefferson Davis' assault on Fort Sumter was totally optional, and he knew it:

Davis to Bragg at Fort Pickens: "There would be to us an advantage in so placing them [Lincoln} that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison [Fort Sumter] that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations."

Note Davis tells Bragg it's an "advantage" and "overbalanced" by "other considerations", nothing to do with necessity or being "forced by Lincoln", etc.

For Davis starting Civil War was totally optional.
Davis chose unwisely.