"Lincoln was a tyrant"

[Chrono85]

Did all of those people need to die in a bloody Civil War? No, the war didn't HAVE to happen, but were those deaths the fault of Lincoln? not necessarily. Why would it make sense to put all of the blame on Lincoln, for the bloodshed and death toll in the war, but not put the same blame on Jefferson Davis? It was actually the Confederates who attacked first, at Fort Sumter, so it was not Abraham Lincoln or the Union military which initiated the armed conflict. Some have said that slavery was a national institution, and not just a thing of the South, in order to claim that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. It is true that slavery existed all over the Union, but by the time Lincoln became President, only four of the 26 states which would remain loyal to the Union, still had legalized slavery: Missouri, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Delaware; and many of the Midwestern and far western states, never had legalized slavery during their history as States.

Many argue that Lincoln was a tyrant, based on the idea that other nations had ended slavery without civil wars, usually by paying money to the plantation owners. This is a misnomer, not only because political and social conditions of the US were unique, but because the Southern States did not even give Lincoln and his administration a chance to do anything like this, since they seceded before he even took office. Also, someone argued that Lincoln could have freed slaves in the North, in order to avoid bloodshed. This is a funny argument from people who criticize Lincoln for overstepping Constitutional boundaries, and then say he should have outright declared slavery illegal. It took the passage of the 13 amendment to make slavery illegal, and even then, Lincoln and others had to do a lot of wrangling to get it passed.  Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the Southern leaders would have ever even entertained this idea, since they were so paranoid in their perception of Lincoln's plans toward slavery, that they did not even allow his name to put on the voting ballots. Lincoln did not cause the Civil War, and the Union did not start the armed conflict. It is not rational or logical to put all of the blame for the carnage of the war on Lincoln, and not, at the same time, put blame on the Confederate leadership; especially since the Confederacy fired the first shots.

[Albert Eisenberg]

This is very biased... Oscar says he supports the Confederacy and the entire OP is written from the point of view of confederate ideals.

No he was not a tyrant. Not by definition and not by reasoning.

[Duuring]

It was actually the Confederates who attacked first, at Fort Sumter, so it was not Abraham Lincoln or the Union military which initiated the armed conflict. [...] put blame on the Confederate leadership; especially since the Confederacy fired the first shots.

That's clear ignorance of military diplomacy. South Carolina has become part of a new nation - the Federal troops were thereby on foreign grounds.
The garrison was asked to surrender the fort, and they refused - That's occupation of foreign ground. In other words, a direct assault on South Carolina, and a clear sign of hostility.

[TheBoberton]

And let's not forget that the occupation of Sumter specifically was a very deadly threat to the harbour's shipping.

And it wasn't just that they were asked to surrender, but that they were asked to remain in Fort Moultrie.. then they went and moved to Sumter in the middle of the night.


I do have to say, it's fitting that the sole casualties of the battle were due to the fact that the Union troops mishandled their cannons during their salute.. after the battle ended.

Edit: I've no idea where 'Morris' came from. It was Moultrie.

[Augy]

the US has a long history of starting wars on false pretenses they often manufactured themselves.

[Betaknight]

It was actually the Confederates who attacked first, at Fort Sumter, so it was not Abraham Lincoln or the Union military which initiated the armed conflict. [...] put blame on the Confederate leadership; especially since the Confederacy fired the first shots.

That's clear ignorance of military diplomacy. South Carolina has become part of a new nation - the Federal troops were thereby on foreign grounds.
The garrison was asked to surrender the fort, and they refused - That's occupation of foreign ground. In other words, a direct assault on South Carolina, and a clear sign of hostility.

But since they declared South Carolina as part of the Confederacy then it was an act of treason against the Union? Thus the garrison was defending their land which in their minds rightfuly belongs to the union. Or did I missunderstand?

[Augy]

It was the north that created the demand for slavery in the south.
I hope no one here pays for food, but if you do ,imagine your food bill rising by three hundred percent just because someone wants a living wage.

[Duuring]

But since they declared South Carolina as part of the Confederacy then it was an act of treason against the Union? Thus the garrison was defending their land which in their minds rightfuly belongs to the union. Or did I missunderstand?

Point of Discussion. But, in my eyes, the 'Union' technically had no ground. The Union consisted of independent states that worked together, and Fort Sumter was on South Carolinian (is that a word?) ground. The Government of South Carolina had chosen to leave the USA and with that went all her possessions - including Fort Sumter. The Fort was not federal ground (Like Washington D. C.), nor part of any of the northern states. The CSA did not want war, naturally, they only wanted independence. The attack was a reaction to, in their eyes, USA aggression and a breach on their sovereignty.

It would have been different, maybe, if the USA had not been a Federation but a centralized state with completely dependent states.

[Millander]

Point of Discussion. But, in my eyes, the 'Union' technically had no ground

This argument was one of the most pivotal causes of the war. The sovereignty of states and the interpretation of the Union is one of the reasons the war started. Most Northerners view the nation as a singular nation and not a collection of states where many southerners. In my opinion the war was a armed rebellion and the US was not in the wrong to reclaim the land rebelling as would any other nation.

 Fort Sumpter was on federal ground and was a Federal made fort garrisoned by Federal Troops and did not belong to South Carolina. Other forts along the SC cost had been handed over diplomatically yet Fort Sumter was chosen to be fired on.

The CSA did not want war, naturally, they only wanted independence

 Any group that rebels and breaks of from a nation would love to be able to do it without war but that does not happen.

It was actually the Confederates who attacked first, at Fort Sumter, so it was not Abraham Lincoln or the Union military which initiated the armed conflict. [...] put blame on the Confederate leadership; especially since the Confederacy fired the first shots.

That's clear ignorance of military diplomacy. South Carolina has become part of a new nation - the Federal troops were thereby on foreign grounds.
The garrison was asked to surrender the fort, and they refused - That's occupation of foreign ground. In other words, a direct assault on South Carolina, and a clear sign of hostility.

But since they declared South Carolina as part of the Confederacy then it was an act of treason against the Union? Thus the garrison was defending their land which in their minds rightfuly belongs to the union. Or did I missunderstand?

You are correct Beta

[Wismar]

Breaking off from the British is ok but breaking off from the US, NO NO NO!

[Duuring]

Fort Sumpter was on federal ground and was a Federal made fort garrisoned by Federal Troops and did not belong to South Carolina. Other forts along the SC cost had been handed over diplomatically yet Fort Sumter was chosen to be fired on.

They had their reasons. I really do not believe they just one sudden moment thought 'You know what? Let's fire at those Yankees for fun!'. TheBoberton said they were asked to remain in a fort, and they chose not to. They could have asked to be evacuated to the USA - They did not. You can't make several moves of aggression and act surprised when they start firing at you.

Of course, most people refuse to look any further then 'the first shot fired'.

In my opinion the war was a armed rebellion and the US was not in the wrong to reclaim the land rebelling as would any other nation.

A 'rebellion' is where a power tries to overrule one power in the same state by force. The CSA did not all the power in the USA, they just wanted their own state, preferably without the means of violence. Their democratic elected governments chose for succession. That's hardly a rebellion. Of course, the Northern states liked to call it a rebellion for propaganda purposes.

Oh, and by the way, where did you find that Fort Sumpter was Federal ground and not in South Carolina?

[TORN]

Just by reading  the author's other articels I can see his a racist conservative...
and Oscar if you don't want people to argue with you and 'hate' on you, you shouldn't have posted the thread in the first place.

[Wismar]

Just by reading  the author's other articels I can see his a racist conservative...
and Oscar if you don't want people to argue with you and 'hate' on you, you shouldn't have posted the thread in the first place.

If you stop expressing your opinions just because of hate and fear of beeing called a racist, you are a very weak individual.

[TORN]

Just by reading  the author's other articels I can see his a racist conservative...
and Oscar if you don't want people to argue with you and 'hate' on you, you shouldn't have posted the thread in the first place.

If you stop expressing your opinions just because of hate and fear of beeing called a racist, you are a very weak individual.

Then you sir are very very weak.

[Wismar]

Just by reading  the author's other articels I can see his a racist conservative...
and Oscar if you don't want people to argue with you and 'hate' on you, you shouldn't have posted the thread in the first place.

If you stop expressing your opinions just because of hate and fear of beeing called a racist, you are a very weak individual.

Then you sir are very very weak.

Why? Because I'm a cellar nazi? I have expressed all of my opinions and I have nothing to hide.