sure they were pretty bad, but the war would not have happened if the north felt that it did not have a right to stop the south. again, war to stop slavery =good; war to stop secession = bad.

By "starting the war" do you mean firing on Fort Sumter or secession? Because the war was happening whether Fort Sumter was fired upon or not.

Yeah.

Now obviously Lincoln was willing to fight a war to prevent the illegal and illegitimate secession if the Southerners insisted on refusing to abide by the laws of this land, but casting him as a hothead who wanted a war really requires ignoring pretty much everything he did in 1855-1859. I wonder where you picked that up?

Both, obviously. Every action the Southerners took in the steps leading up to the civil war indicated that the were going to fight a war at even a non-imminent threat of slavery ending.

You said that I am a neoconfederate and was spouting vile racist lies. You know, vile racist lies like Lincoln wanted to go to war to prevent southern secession. lol.

I learned Lincoln's motives from reading many mainstream histories of the Civil War. Like Battle Cry of Freedom, Shelby Foote's history, etc. Lincoln explicitly stated, many times, publicly and privately, that his only goal at the outset of war was to prevent secession. I haven't changed my position one bit.

If Lincoln had made the war about ending slavery and not preventing secession, sure.

Just as soon as you show me some of my vile racist lies.

The South waved the flag like a matador and got gored. Provocations are not usually the device of peace-loving people.

Well, I think that going to war simply to prevent a large region of a country from splitting off is quite wrong.

Do you not realize the British would have been all over us like white on rice had the nation been divided?

To call secession illegal only after a war waged over it determined the outcome is being a bit results oriented. Early America of all places believed in self governance and liberty of the states. It certainly isn't clear what the framers would have believed on this issue and the only reason it is "illegal" is because of the outcome of a massive war.

I've never said Lincoln was a hothead. He wasn't anything close to a radical abolitionist. Not that there is anything wrong with being a radical abolitionist, that's quite admirable.

Did Lincoln "want war"? Well he wasn't eager for it or a bellicose man or anything. The war weighed increasingly heavily on him through the ordeal, and he never treated the matter glibly, even from the start.

But certainly once the South seceded he knew that there would be no negotiated reunification and that war was the only way to reestablish the Union. And he reinforced Sumter knowing that it would be interpreted as a provocative act and hoping that it would lure the South into firing first. That's like established historical fact. You might want to read noted neoconfederate James McPherson's thoughts on the matter.

What is this thread?

Well, you are a neoconfederate, but I never said you were spouting anything. I said you believed vile racist lies and that it's a little weird that you've never gone back and mentally re-evaluated the credibility of, e.g., DiLorenzo.

Wait, this is a negotiation? You have personally developed such a legal/moral philosophy, and even though the answer to that question is CRITICAL to your neoconfederate argument you aren't going to tell the thread that because I hurt your feelings?

TomCollins tried the same trick earlier in the thread, bro, nobody is ever going to fall for "Trust me I can answer that question, but I'm not going to". People see through that **** and realize you can't answer the question.

All right, what vile racist lies do I believe?

lol indeed.

If you're going to call him a neoconfederate, you need to back it up.

Reading and enjoying and then pretty much regurgitating DiLorenzo is what I'm basing the "charge" of neoconfederacy on. But since mjkidd needs his feelings coddled, maybe he's not a neo-confederate, he just thinks the neo-confederates got everything right about the Civil War.

Did you read that book?

Consider this inflammatory assertion: "Eliminating every last black person from American soil, Lincoln proclaimed, would be 'a glorious consummation.'" Compare the nuances and qualifications in what Lincoln actually said: "If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation." One need not be a Lincoln admirer to recognize that DiLorenzo is making an unfair characterization. DiLorenzo actually gets so overwrought that at one point he attributes to Lincoln racist views Lincoln was attacking. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Lincoln

This does not sound like a good book to me.

lol I need my feelings coddled. You called me a neoconfederate and someone who spouts vile racist lies.

Literally the only thing neoconfederates and I agree on is that secession should not automatically be met with force.

Tons of stuff going on, all of it hilarious.

mjkidd- Hilariously, we've literally already done this. We've attacked DiLorenzo, you've been all "I don't see what's wrong with him", we've done the League of the South dance, you've been "I don't see what's wrong with them"...

I just don't see the point of sidetracking this into being about you. I mean, I know why you want to go there, because you can't answer the question which is directly relevant to the discussion about the Civil War.

You made it about me when you called me a vile racist liar and a neoconfederate.

Also, mjkidd, if that's literally the only thing you agree with the neo-Confederates on WHY THE **** DO YOU HAVE 200 POSTS IN THIS THREAD?

mjkidd- I was describing the works of DiLorenzo, Rothbard, etc. as vile racist lies. You read their work product uncritically. You should not do that. It's understandable that you did it once, but getting all butthurt about it after literally YEARS of the truth being patiently explained...

I don't understand the question.

The above implies that I am repeating vile racist lies. Of course you can't actually SHOW where I have done this, but you can imply that I have done so and call me a neoconfederate.

I'm not "butthurt". You said that I'm repeating vile racist lies. And that I am a neoconfederate. Those are pretty strong accusations. You should back them up.