1. I don't see anyone ITT saying that the primary reason Lincoln entered the war was to end slavery.
2. I don't see anyone ITT saying it would not be preferable, much more preferable, if we could have abolished slavery without a war.

I *DO* see people saying that Lincoln was at least nominally anti-slavery, and I see people saying the end result -we went to war, the North won, and resultingly slavery was abolished - is better than not going to war and having slavery continue.

Yes, it's possible, but it's not like your arguments for it being so deeply entrenched that war was necessary are any more or less compelling than the arguments that peaceful solutions that worked in other countries but hadn't been pursued in the US yet were viable.

Wookie beat me to this, but not only does green not follow red, but it doesn't even make sense. Slavery would have been abolished if only the president - who the anti-Lincolnites take great pains to say he didn't have a huge problem with slavery, at least not enough to go to war over it - would have called off the dogs, then that somehow would have led to some sort of diplomatic solution where the South would've just given up slavery without violence, which was so important to them is basically half the preamble of their Consitution?

Yeah, I mean, it's not like a bunch of states seceded, like, before Lincoln was even inaugurated, and like, that secession wasn't explicitly and specifically to preserve slavery, and they couldn't have known that firing on a US military base would be considered an act of war. Obviously these people were open to a peaceful solution. They were trying to negotiate some sort of non-violent end to the institution that had made them filthy stinking rich. Really.

Non-sequitur to the people denigrating wingnuttery?

Neither FDR's nor Churchill's goal in waging WWII was to save Jews. Ergo, if the people who symbolize your ideology have some weird endless focus on apologizing for the Nuremberg Laws, the notable politicians who are servile to your ideology take smiling photos with neo-Nazis (OICWYDT), and one of the core philosophers of your ideology wistfully hopes that someday FDR's and Churchill's statues will be toppled and melted down, their insignias and battle flags will be desecrated, their war songs tossed into the fire, and then Rommel and Brauchitsch and Himmler and von Leeb, and all the heroes of the Reich, "Horst-Wessel-Lied" and the Reichs flagge, will once again be truly honored and remembered -- HEY MAN, IGNORE ALL THAT, BECAUSE DON'T FORGET, Lincoln FDR HAD IMPURE MOTIVES!1!1!!

Yes, you're right bro, those uppity pro-war types, when wondering aloud what in the world would make contemporary people are apologize for the Confederacy's motivations for seceding, we should have endless focus on whatever motivated Lincoln, and in irony of ironies, not the Confederates.

Please don't do that again.

Ever.

It would have taken decades.

This thread is in outstanding form for 4am EDT imo

PDT FTW

Before you get on your high horse calling the Confederates morally bankrupt, did you know Lincoln once took a **** and purposefully didn't wipe? Think about it!!!!! Ergo, dismantle the Civil Rights Act.

I heard that Lincoln once referred to a black man as a negro. HE WAS NO BETTER THAN THE CONFEDERATES. EXCEPT HE WAS WORSE. HE TOOK AWAY THE RIGHT TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION SO THAT YOU COULD KEEP THE RIGHT TO ENSLAVE NEGROES.

The Fort was on Confederate Territory. Nothing else you have written rules out the possibility of a peaceful solution.

Oh, so whatever state you're in owns your house?

As for ruling out a peaceful solution, the seceding states did that for me:

Man, only a few posts in and I already got one of the most prominent posters on the board to break Godwin's law. gg.

I heard Lincoln once said he hoped Tad never grew up and married a black woman. What a racist dbag. So, from that, we can determine that war wasn't a necessity to end slavery and that both peace and abolition could have been obtained under a more diplomatic regime. ****ing Lincoln! Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN!!! LINCOLN!!! LINCOLN!!!

Ozzie,

OH **** THAT MEANS YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT

Wookie, I honestly don't think he even read the post.

He just scanned, saw the word "NAZI" and....

Err, the CSA wasn't a legitimate country, the acts of succession were illegal, and they we not recognized by any foreign countries. The CSA had no territory, ever. Before the war, during the war, and after the war Ft. Sumner was a legally established US fort on US territory.

Lincoln once got on a public horse drawn carriage and didn't give up his seat in the front when a black person boarded and made them sit in the back. Therefore, the Civil War probably didn't need to happen.

Umm, what? What does this have to do with a peaceful solution? It was unreasonable to fire on property in the South's territory after the commanding officer of the fort refused to evacuate (and wanted to reinforce it) when prompted to by the Governor of said territory? Now slavery wont be ended peacefully? Because this is such irrational behavior?

Maybe one day, when the world recognizes this unneeded northern aggression against peaceful pacifist Southerns who wanted nothing more than to retreat to their plantations in peace and enjoy watching the slave folk tend to the field while they enjoyed a tall glass of peace-loving lemonade while the house slave children played Dixie on a fiddle for their entertainment, maybe just maybe, aided and abetted by Northerners like you and I in the glorious "copperhead" tradition, the South shall rise again.

Oh, so if the government of your state starts shooting at your house, it means you should have left long ago?

Fort Sumter was southern property, wrapped in peace and tranquility, in the same way a common slave belonged to a plantation owner. Both were rightfully theirs, the North had no right to take them away with their nosy and interloping war of aggression. The South was just defending their property, like you would if someone stole your car. You might even call Fort Sumter, like slaves, Peace Property say. For some reason that ******* Lincoln waged war against the South's Peace Property. If you like Peace and Property rights, I don't see how you can be for Lincoln. Now let's sing Dixie together in the hopes one day all peaceful people will see these inexorable truths.

Whether secession was illegal or not is political opinion. Some Founding Fathers believed strongly in states rights including secession, others didn't. But I really don't see how bringing up the legitimacy of the act has anything to do with peaceful solutions to end slavery. You guys just keep shifting the debate. People revolted. Lincoln's reaction to that revolt led to a war and the abolition of slavery. If Lincoln had reacted differently there is a non-zero chance slavery could have ended without a major military conflict. This is such a stretch to label it as wingnuttery?

Oh sure, non-zero. Let's just let 4 million people be brutalized for another 240 years. Or more. There's a non-zero chance it might end in that time. I'm sure the market was just about to end slavery. IF ONLY THE DAMN GOVERNMENT HADN'T GOTTEN IN THE WAY.