Eh, I'm far from fully informed on the issue, but there was a lot of sketchy shit. He did some things right, but plenty wrong and, yes, he was pretty dictatorial. He went out of his way to punish and instigate pre-war, and he actively went against past treaties and the Constitution to try to "keep the country together."
I'm not here to wave a Confederate flag or anything, but the South should have been allowed to secede, and friendly relations should have been attempted instead of a bloody civil war. Also, he was far from kind to black people, luring escaped slaves in with promises of freedom before drafting them to go back and fight, and the like. Now, I admit to my biases, and this is certainly my very small government lolbertarian coming out, but yeah, I think the war could have been avoided instead of stoked, and I think slavery would have faded out on its own anyway.
We can argue over whether or not Lincoln was justified, but I think he was pretty clearly a dictator.
We can argue over whether or not Lincoln was justified, but I think he was pretty clearly a dictator.
Almost all Lincoln love is based on hindsight. If he had failed then history would have seen many of these flaws as his primary traits. But because he won, the South was mega evil, all actions against them justified, and he is ultra saint because slavery and shit.
And truly, slavery could have and likely would have ended entirely without his actions within time as the entire global market was shifting against it. But instead we now still have a broken South dragging the country down and a race problem that has no end, entirely as a result of his methodology.
It's funny because the same people that whine about how other countries are only bad off because the US government attacked them have zero problem mocking the south even though we are their fellow countrymen
I agree Lincoln is wrongly deified in American culture but I still think the real villains were the abolitionists.
Important to understand that it would have been possible to avoid civil war and end slavery by having the federal government purchase and free all slaves. But abolitionists wouldn't have that, they didn't want slaveowners to be rewarded. They wanted the entire south dead, and they were going to get a war with or without Lincoln. To what extent Lincoln worsened or lessened the bloodthirst of the north is up for debate.
To his credit, when he realized the same banks funded the north and south (and he had to pay all the debts) he printed his own currency any paid them with that. The banks were furious, and a short while later he was dead.
Yeah, Brazil, which was colonized by some Confederates, showed very clearly that Slavery could be ended with compensation and regulation over time. It took longer, but 2% of their population wasn't killed.
Real Politik says that if the foundation of a countries economy tries to secede, the response is one of force.
Economic wealth comes from the value-add step of production / distribution. You create wealth by getting something, then turn it into something that is sold for more.
This is always isolated by geography. 40% of the Iron Ore in the world comes from Australia. Most of that comes from WA. Most of that comes from a few mines.
If WA tries to take their dominance over the global Iron and Steel market, and just fuck off... well the answer is simple. Roll in tanks, crush the resistance then promptly set about addressing the genuine issues that the Western Australians have, so that they don't want to do it again.
You can make parallel examples using industrial production in Germany. Germany is one of the three biggest economies in Europe. The vast majority of their wealth comes from a few provinces that take cheap Russian gas and turn it into manufactured goods in sophisticated factories. If those provinces decide to just leave, the economy of Germany will implode overnight.
The Art of War says: To win without fighting is best. There was plenty of time to address the real and genuine concerns of the south. Failing that, the solution was to break them with military force and then fix the pieces.
At that juncture the alternative was to cede half the union and then have a hostile power on the southern border; which would have been untenable. It would have lead directly to military build-up and an even bigger war within 50 years.
The short answer is because of the same reasons the south was unhappy before the Civil war.
Access to road and port infrastructure. Lack of a Navy or merchant navy. Taxes on their goods and trade.
Border security would have been a nightmare, and it would have lead to escalating smuggling etc. as the Union would have attempted to impose tariffs and duties.
Both the North and the South would be required to arm and send troops to the border to guard them.
Add to the fact that slaves running to the Union would have immediately become free... and you have a volatile political situation.
We won't know what would have happened, but at the very least it would have set a precedent for splitting the union further every time that a state or group of states got upset.
Funny you should mention WA and secession because there's always been a simmering desire for it here, and they voted 60/40 for it in the 1930s. It wasn't accepted by England and then labor (note the unaustralian spelling of the party's name) came into power and squashed it.
They did do as you suggested to some degree, in that they solved some of the issues with a more equitable share of gov funds going to WA. And when WA's share of those same funds (largely generated by that mining you mentioned) plummeted again in 2010 or so and they tried to put in a mining tax, that is when you saw a burgeoning resurgence of those secessionist views.
The other states close down or throttle their mines and their (tasmania) lumber industries. Fine. That's their choice. But they shouldn't then get to take money from WA mines, is the reasonable WA viewpoint viewpoint. No mooching.
If WA tries to take their dominance over the global Iron and Steel market, and just fuck off... well the answer is simple. Roll in tanks, crush the resistance
This is a description you can use for literally everyone in history.
he was pretty dictatorial.
If you can name me one leader in a (civil) war who was less 'dictatorial', that'd be great.
He went out of his way to punish and instigate pre-war, and he actively went against past treaties and the Constitution to try to "keep the country together."
How? I like how the anti-Lincoln folks simultaneously bash him for supporting the amendment to guarantee slavery where it already existed (which wouldn't change anything), and also say that he was war-mongering.
I'm not here to wave a Confederate flag or anything
There's nothing wrong with that either. In fact, from a European POV, I'd have preferred that the Confederates had won, because we wouldn't have been subjugated under the yoke of a unified America with no regional rivals.
and friendly relations should have been attempted instead of a bloody civil war.
And he did, until the Confederates made the major mistake of attacking Fort Sumter. Even people who support the Confederates should admit that this was a major mistake.
Also, he was far from kind to black people, luring escaped slaves in with promises of freedom before drafting them to go back and fight, and the like.
Were they actually forced to fight?
Now, I admit to my biases, and this is certainly my very small government lolbertarian coming out
That I actually completely understand, although it is my understanding that there was not that much of a watershed in federal power after the Civil War. Hell, the Republicans could not even enforce civil rights in the south.
We can argue over whether or not Lincoln was justified, but I think he was pretty clearly a dictator.
That's fine to discuss, but let's stick to the topic. During World War II, Britain did not even hold elections, because.... there was a war going on. So it's pretty great to have elections in the middle of a (civil) war.
Eh, I'm far from fully informed on the issue, but there was a lot of sketchy shit. He did some things right, but plenty wrong and, yes, he was pretty dictatorial. He went out of his way to punish and instigate pre-war, and he actively went against past treaties and the Constitution to try to "keep the country together."
I'm not here to wave a Confederate flag or anything, but the South should have been allowed to secede, and friendly relations should have been attempted instead of a bloody civil war. Also, he was far from kind to black people, luring escaped slaves in with promises of freedom before drafting them to go back and fight, and the like. Now, I admit to my biases, and this is certainly my very small government lolbertarian coming out, but yeah, I think the war could have been avoided instead of stoked, and I think slavery would have faded out on its own anyway.
We can argue over whether or not Lincoln was justified, but I think he was pretty clearly a dictator.
Almost all Lincoln love is based on hindsight. If he had failed then history would have seen many of these flaws as his primary traits. But because he won, the South was mega evil, all actions against them justified, and he is ultra saint because slavery and shit.
And truly, slavery could have and likely would have ended entirely without his actions within time as the entire global market was shifting against it. But instead we now still have a broken South dragging the country down and a race problem that has no end, entirely as a result of his methodology.
It's funny because the same people that whine about how other countries are only bad off because the US government attacked them have zero problem mocking the south even though we are their fellow countrymen
I agree Lincoln is wrongly deified in American culture but I still think the real villains were the abolitionists.
Important to understand that it would have been possible to avoid civil war and end slavery by having the federal government purchase and free all slaves. But abolitionists wouldn't have that, they didn't want slaveowners to be rewarded. They wanted the entire south dead, and they were going to get a war with or without Lincoln. To what extent Lincoln worsened or lessened the bloodthirst of the north is up for debate.
To his credit, when he realized the same banks funded the north and south (and he had to pay all the debts) he printed his own currency any paid them with that. The banks were furious, and a short while later he was dead.
Yeah, Brazil, which was colonized by some Confederates, showed very clearly that Slavery could be ended with compensation and regulation over time. It took longer, but 2% of their population wasn't killed.
Real Politik says that if the foundation of a countries economy tries to secede, the response is one of force.
Economic wealth comes from the value-add step of production / distribution. You create wealth by getting something, then turn it into something that is sold for more.
This is always isolated by geography. 40% of the Iron Ore in the world comes from Australia. Most of that comes from WA. Most of that comes from a few mines.
If WA tries to take their dominance over the global Iron and Steel market, and just fuck off... well the answer is simple. Roll in tanks, crush the resistance then promptly set about addressing the genuine issues that the Western Australians have, so that they don't want to do it again.
You can make parallel examples using industrial production in Germany. Germany is one of the three biggest economies in Europe. The vast majority of their wealth comes from a few provinces that take cheap Russian gas and turn it into manufactured goods in sophisticated factories. If those provinces decide to just leave, the economy of Germany will implode overnight.
The Art of War says: To win without fighting is best. There was plenty of time to address the real and genuine concerns of the south. Failing that, the solution was to break them with military force and then fix the pieces.
At that juncture the alternative was to cede half the union and then have a hostile power on the southern border; which would have been untenable. It would have lead directly to military build-up and an even bigger war within 50 years.
Why would the free southern states be any more hostile and untenable than Canada?
The short answer is because of the same reasons the south was unhappy before the Civil war.
Access to road and port infrastructure. Lack of a Navy or merchant navy. Taxes on their goods and trade.
Border security would have been a nightmare, and it would have lead to escalating smuggling etc. as the Union would have attempted to impose tariffs and duties.
Both the North and the South would be required to arm and send troops to the border to guard them.
Add to the fact that slaves running to the Union would have immediately become free... and you have a volatile political situation.
We won't know what would have happened, but at the very least it would have set a precedent for splitting the union further every time that a state or group of states got upset.
Funny you should mention WA and secession because there's always been a simmering desire for it here, and they voted 60/40 for it in the 1930s. It wasn't accepted by England and then labor (note the unaustralian spelling of the party's name) came into power and squashed it.
They did do as you suggested to some degree, in that they solved some of the issues with a more equitable share of gov funds going to WA. And when WA's share of those same funds (largely generated by that mining you mentioned) plummeted again in 2010 or so and they tried to put in a mining tax, that is when you saw a burgeoning resurgence of those secessionist views.
The other states close down or throttle their mines and their (tasmania) lumber industries. Fine. That's their choice. But they shouldn't then get to take money from WA mines, is the reasonable WA viewpoint viewpoint. No mooching.
Molon labe.
The example was not picked at random.
I don't think that the Sandgropers are managing their Iron Ore or Copper Ore supplies very well, but no one consults with me before they make policy.
This is a description you can use for literally everyone in history.
If you can name me one leader in a (civil) war who was less 'dictatorial', that'd be great.
How? I like how the anti-Lincoln folks simultaneously bash him for supporting the amendment to guarantee slavery where it already existed (which wouldn't change anything), and also say that he was war-mongering.
There's nothing wrong with that either. In fact, from a European POV, I'd have preferred that the Confederates had won, because we wouldn't have been subjugated under the yoke of a unified America with no regional rivals.
And he did, until the Confederates made the major mistake of attacking Fort Sumter. Even people who support the Confederates should admit that this was a major mistake.
Were they actually forced to fight?
That I actually completely understand, although it is my understanding that there was not that much of a watershed in federal power after the Civil War. Hell, the Republicans could not even enforce civil rights in the south.
And I don't see what makes him a 'dictator'./
How about every one of them who decided to permit secession rather than fight a civil war in the first place?
That's fine to discuss, but let's stick to the topic. During World War II, Britain did not even hold elections, because.... there was a war going on. So it's pretty great to have elections in the middle of a (civil) war.
Not if you are arresting people for leading the opposition.