There were several states that opposed Lincoln and many, mamy people were shot for it.
He didn't fight the civil war to end slavery. That was a happy side effect. The states had a right to secede from the union. The union committed war crimes during the civil war, violating the bill of rights and particularly trampling the 9th and 10th amendments, and the entire framework of the US government.
You are calling people "spoiled" for correctly identifying a point in US history that started the decline of the US and removing rose colored glasses from a president that caused it. The hell is your problem? These things are objective truths. Lincoln treating the states as subservient property of the federal government was bad.
If the civil war had actually been about slavery, if the fighting had been to the extent of smacking the south over that, it would have played out very differently. It also would have ended with the US staying separate countries.
It did not. Lincoln was no great heroic champion of rights. He started that war to force the southern states back under the boot of the federal government, and the precedent of federal power followed.
There were several states that opposed Lincoln and many, mamy people were shot for it.
Name five people who were "shot for opposing Lincoln".
He didn't fight the civil war to end slavery. That was a happy side effect.
Obviously, no one would go to war to end slavery. Nor did he have the authority to "end slavery".
The states had a right to secede from the union.
Did they though? Even the Confederacy explicitly forbade it.
The union committed war crimes during the civil war, violating the bill of rights and particularly trampling the 9th and 10th amendments, and the entire framework of the US government.
Violating either, even if established, is not a war crime. But do feel free to show how Lincoln violated the ius in bello as understood by people in the 1860s.
You are calling people "spoiled" for correctly identifying a point in US history that started the decline of the US and removing rose colored glasses from a president that caused it. The hell is your problem? These things are objective truths. Lincoln treating the states as subservient property of the federal government was bad.
I'm calling people spoiled for using the word 'dictator' for someone who clearly wasn't. Anything else you want to argue, perfectly fine. But then argue that and not something that is not true.
If the civil war had actually been about slavery, if the fighting had been to the extent of smacking the south over that, it would have played out very differently. It also would have ended with the US staying separate countries.
Obviously, no political leader anywhere is going to invest political capital in something that does not benefit him, and no one's going to fight a war to "end slavery". So much should be obvious.
It did not. Lincoln was no great heroic champion of rights.
He was though.All he said was that slavery should not be extended into the territories, and when he won, the sore losers seceded.
He started that war to force the southern states back under the boot of the federal government, and the precedent of federal power followed.
There were several states that opposed Lincoln and many, mamy people were shot for it.
He didn't fight the civil war to end slavery. That was a happy side effect. The states had a right to secede from the union. The union committed war crimes during the civil war, violating the bill of rights and particularly trampling the 9th and 10th amendments, and the entire framework of the US government.
You are calling people "spoiled" for correctly identifying a point in US history that started the decline of the US and removing rose colored glasses from a president that caused it. The hell is your problem? These things are objective truths. Lincoln treating the states as subservient property of the federal government was bad.
If the civil war had actually been about slavery, if the fighting had been to the extent of smacking the south over that, it would have played out very differently. It also would have ended with the US staying separate countries.
It did not. Lincoln was no great heroic champion of rights. He started that war to force the southern states back under the boot of the federal government, and the precedent of federal power followed.
Theu trampled 1 through 10. The 3rd and 4th were killed and drawn and quartered while the 6th was summarily executed
Name five people who were "shot for opposing Lincoln".
Obviously, no one would go to war to end slavery. Nor did he have the authority to "end slavery".
Did they though? Even the Confederacy explicitly forbade it.
Violating either, even if established, is not a war crime. But do feel free to show how Lincoln violated the ius in bello as understood by people in the 1860s.
I'm calling people spoiled for using the word 'dictator' for someone who clearly wasn't. Anything else you want to argue, perfectly fine. But then argue that and not something that is not true.
Obviously, no political leader anywhere is going to invest political capital in something that does not benefit him, and no one's going to fight a war to "end slavery". So much should be obvious.
He was though.All he said was that slavery should not be extended into the territories, and when he won, the sore losers seceded.
He did not fire on Fort Sumter.