I think a few here is fond of the old Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but looking into the actions that he did during the years into the prelude of World War 2 was really interesting. At his behest, he supplied Joseph Stalin and the whole Soviet Union of military equipment and intelligence to prepare for the Nazis. I really don't think that Americans during at the time was on board with supplying another enemy, the communists, with their own handmade products just to hold off the Reich.
Let's not get started with the internment camps he did against Americans of Japanese lineage after the Pearl Harbor attacks, how the Democrats were tight-lipped about it to this day, and the communist project that the former First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt did in Arthurdale, Virginia, that was still left untold on how many people died due to starvation on that god forsaken experiment of hers.
You should look up what happened to precipitate the attack of Fort Sumter. Occupying a previously unoccupied fort and sending a massive military convoy to reinforce it isn't exactly a peaceful overture.
Dude, the war was 150 years ago. You don't need to keep fighting it. We're allowed to state uncomfortable truths about our side. Or maybe you're unaware:
Nor was seizing the dozens of federal forts around it.
The stupidity of Jefferson Davis, for one.
Incorrect, Lincoln was only sending supplies and informed the governor of South Carolina that this is what he was doing. It was not by Lincoln's orders that Anderson occupied Fort Sumter, which by the way, he had every right to do as it was federal property.
Well then next time state something that's true. Also, it's not 'my side'. I'm European. I think it was political malpractice for the British and French not to have backed the Confederacy, as that led to the rise of the American Leviathan. I'd much rather have two, maybe three or four Americas that are constantly at each other's throats.
And you fell right into the trap. I knew you were going to cite that latter. Apparently, you were unaware that as he was writing that, he was also drafting the Emancipation Proclamation, waiting for an opportune moment which came after Antietam. That letter was only an assurance to Northern conservatives who would think that he is making the war about abolition and not preservation of the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a military move, not a humanitarian one. Lord Dunmore and Admiral Cochrane both used similar proclamations during the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812, respectively. Lincoln just had the added complexity of assuaging Loyalist states.
Honestly, it was a complete disaster, from a humanitarian perspective. The Union columns had no ability or interest in helping these "freed" slaves, and it's estimated a quarter of them died of starvation and disease. But it did help sow chaos into southern states, both economically and socially, so it accomplished it's purpose.
As to his views on it, he seemed mostly Jeffersonian. On one hand, slavery was unnatural and wrong, but on the other, whites and blacks could not coexist on the same functional level.
Still can't. They should be sent back to their natural habitat, and left to live as they will.
It was justified as a military necessity, as POTUS does not have the power to free slaves as a 'humanitarian move'. But only someone completely unfamiliar with Lincoln's long record of opposition to slavery could be fooled by that - and his subsequent support for abolition.
Until very late in his life, yes.
He did have the power to provision his military to be able to assist with the humanitarian crisis he created, though. It wasn't just "justified", it was the only purpose. Foment rebellion, decrease productivity, and inspire fear.
Which is completely logical. He may have had the raw resources and manpower, but he fought a far more determined enemy. It was a good play.