Neither. I mean, this isn't a false dichotomy, it's just based on bad assumptions, since your question is intimately predicated on the subject having a particular set of beliefs that would prevent him from being in that position to begin with.

However, to somewhat answer what you're actually trying to ask, if Lincoln *had* actually gone to war *to end slavery* there would be very, very little to criticize him for.

I like your tentative answer better than how I responded. So if Wookie responds to me, I'll just refer him to you.

Multiple citations needed. It's funny you guys get all mad at fly and stuff but its even funnier when I look at any neoconfederate revisionist b.s. and see the same exact talking points that are being brought to the argument itt.

What a weird and strange and unsettling post. You do realize that the tax in question was a tariff tax and therefore indirect. And hopefully you do realize that most southerners did not own slaves. Do you really need citations? How strange.

Also, to call me a neo-confederate is just completly false based on what I've posted regarding attacking people who shackle other people up. Do you not read posts?

So no citations on that stuff then eh? Cite the tariff claim if you are going to cite anything. Your claim that most didn't own slaves is irrelevant because:

1. You don't have to own slaves to directly benefit (ie your family owns slaves). Any cite as to how many families owned slaves?
2. You don't have to own slaves for your family business or your business to benefit.
3. A lot of the poor thought slavery was fine and dreamed of the day they made it to the level of slave ownership.

Wiki

How about the Morrill Tariff act that choked off the South. And wow, wow, when I said the majority of the south didn't own slaves, you respond by saying that they wished they did, (therefore evidently they should be killed?), which is what I was opposing. Just wow. Just wow.

lol where did i say they should be killed? I'm just correcting your claim that the most of the south were innocents wrt to slavery.

WHY WASN'T LINCOLN DRONE STRIKING THE SLAVE OWNERS INSTEAD OF KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE!

I said ,the northern invading army did a great deal of harm to these people ( read this as kill) You missed this obviously because you cut and snipped my post to make your own very strange point. I never said southerners were innocent in regard to slavery. Please read what I actually said. What I said was that most southerners didn't own slaves. If you think that everyday persons in the south were guilty because of the folks around them, then that's your weird reason to kill people without due proccess (not mine)

How many declarations of secession mentioned Tariffs? Also, most of the states had already seceded by the time this came?

Wasn't that because they were slaves?

Yes, the southern economy was god awful. Slavery sucks.

Saying you are bringing up arguments that neo-confederates use does not equal calling you a neo-confederate. Do you not read posts?

Yeah we get it. Only the ones that owned slaves deserved punishment. Not the ones supporting the Confederecah. They were killed by a war mongering president simply because they disliked taxes.

What's the difference. The south tried fight a war over slavery and the north fought it to keep the union. The fact that the north finally decided to stop compromising on the issue of slavery makes it awesome.

Yikes, you really haven't comprehended what I've said. The south seceeded because of their stated reasons of slavery. They were pieces of ****. However, in Lincoln's first inaugural address he said this:

Lincoln promised that there would be no use of force against the South, unless it proved necessary for him to fulfill his obligation to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places" belonging to the federal government, and to collect legal duties and imposts.

he also said this:
Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham...ugural_address

Just because people were in the south does not mean they supported slavery and should be "punished"

Amazing that you complain about reading comprehension and then say this when I distinctly clarified "people that support the Confederaceh". How you get to me supporting the killing of innocent people out of this is beyond me. People who didn't support didn't need to fight. Despite a draft, hundreds of thousands of confederate troops deserted you know?

You included the bold in this very sarcastic statement indicating that slave holders are the same as people who support the confederaceh (sic):

Your exact statement:

"Yeah we get it. Only the ones that owned slaves deserved punishment. Not the ones supporting the Confederecah. They were killed by a war mongering president simply because they disliked taxes."

You think people that supported slavery (to the point of busting out a new army uniform and taking to arms) but because they didn't actually own slaves just deserve a slap on the wrist?

yukoncpa- Who taught you all this wonderful stuff about the Morrill Act and Lincoln's inaugural address proving that he didn't care about slavery(again, Lincoln not caring about slavery makes the South seceding over his election SO WEIRD) and how slavery wasn't necessarily profitable(?? lol) and that there was a way to end slavery without the war that wasn't tried?

Spoiler alert: each and every one of your terrible Lost Cause arguments has been covered in this thread. Exhaustively.

No. Realize that people in the South that didn't own slaves didn't neccessarily support slavery. But suppose an non slave owner, like say, Hucklberry Finn, did in a way support slavery, because after all, it's biblical. What punishment do semi-slave ( but non slave owners) supporters deserve in your opinion? Should they be killed? Just raped? or maybe their houses burnt and their belongings seized? Should they just have all their rights taken away from them under marshall law? How much punishment should a slave supporter, who has various degrees of support be punished? And who should decide how much punishment a somewhat supporter should get?

Er there's a bunch of brothels in India, Nepal and the rest of S. Asia you better start raiding. They won't be hard to find, just ask a cab driver where the girls are. Godspeed.

When you get done with those we'll start on all the other places where people still sell their children to rich families or marry off their 11-year-old daughters for $$.