Did Abraham Lincoln have any choice in order to free the slaves other than to bloody fight a neighbouring country?

[HippieVeganJewslim]

More Americans died in the so-called ‘Civil’ War than in both World Wars combined. Many soldiers in battles would call informal truces and would trade goods, Yankees to Confederates and vice versa. Were there not countries other than CSA that owned slaves? Did Lincoln bloody fight them? Did any Black people not die in the War, whichever side? Did Clara Barton not help soldiers from both sides, even Blacks?

[Anonymous]

The slaves weren't freed for themselves. They were bad for the US economy and with the US looking to expand west they needed to fill those territories up with people and the only way to do that was by offering settlers land and opportunity which would attract us citizens in the US and people in Europe, this would not happen if giant slave plantations were set up in these new states driving settlers to the wall by out competing them like what happened to Abraham Lincoln's father.

The CSA was a rogue nation that rebelled not unlike the founding father the real difference is the CSA lost and right makes might.

If slavery had been allowed to continue the US as we know it would have been divided between two nations nowhere near as rich or as powerful. The Northern would be wealthy and an economic powerhouse and the CSA would be a collection of independent states that today would be corrupt and divided like Mexico and all those other central and southern American countries. What all those white nationalist confederate in the south don't acknowledge is that the southern states had been able to succeed and slavery allowed to continue then all those southern states then African Americans would be the main demographic there today. I mean because of the history of slavery the majority of African Americans live in the old confederate states and more are moving there for a better life from the north due to less crime, lower cost of living and cheaper property prices as well as warmer weather.

[Anonymous]

Abraham Lincoln didn't start the Civil War, and he, personally, didn't have an issue with slave ownership. It is true that his family didn't own slaves, but this was simply because they were too poor to do so, instead they would RENT slaves on an annual basis.

The Civil War was originally fought by the north to maintain the status quo, if they were against slavery as ferverantly as people like to think, they would boycott goods made of cotton from the south and tobacco because by buying those goods they were perpetuating the system. Furthermore, if it was the primary goal, the Emancipation Proclamation would have impacted northern held areas (it was written in such a way as to ONLY impact southern held territory, leaving slavery legal in slave states that were under northern control.) The Emancipation Proclamation was a political document, a toothless lion at the time as it only impacted people who considered themselves a different country, meant to drum up support for a generally unpopular war.

While the US Civil War was about slavery, it was more about the politics and economics of slavery than the morality (blacks couldn't serve as officers over whites even through WWII in the US military so it wasn't an equality thing on the federal level). However, this doesn't change the good that came of it.

That being said, slavery is not completely abolished in the US, in fact it is still state sanctioned.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Could Lincoln just arrest the dude who did start the War? I for some reason was taught that he started the War, my apologies.

[Opinion Owner]

The person who started the civil war was not so cut and dry. Do you arrest the state politicians who signed the documents secceeding from the union? Or the messenger who delivered them? Or Jefferson Davis who was the president of the confederacy? Or the soldiers who attacked Fort Sumter? Or you can go back to the founding fathers for not doing away with the practice then, but instead taking on a practice of half measures.

The United States Civil War was not started by any one man, and in fact, it began literally days before Lincoln actually took office.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Thanks. I wish the schools were a bit more honest.

[Opinion Owner]

They try, but wars aren't usually as simple as a single person or event, it's like how you can trace the causes of the Korean War all the way back to June 28, 1914, and really the only reason I can only trace it back that far is because my understanding of 19th Century European politics is lacking...

The US Civil War is no different, they don't offer economic classes until high school, so how do you teach it to 6th graders? You tell them the watered down but, "it was over slavery"

[HippieVeganJewslim]

I want them not to try. I want them to do it.

[Opinion Owner]

The public education system here is lacking...

[HippieVeganJewslim]

I can’t agree more.

[Opinion Owner]

However, our teen pregnancy rates show that our pubic school system is doing great lol

[HippieVeganJewslim]

I support antinatalism.

[Opinion Owner]

I like that

[WhiteBoyChill]

It had nothing at all to do with slavery. At least in terms of Lincoln’s personal involvement. As you said he had nothing personally against the issue and for him the express goal had just been to keep the country together and gradually seek to phase it out

[RolandCuthbert]

Maybe you should pick up a history book. But states are not allowed to cede from the Union. We still have such movements today, even after the horror of one of the bloodiest wars in history.

Anyway, the South after proclaiming their independence, decided that no Northern troops, bases, or assets could stay in what they defined as their new nation. They demanded the Union evacuate Fort Sumter. Lincoln refused, the South attacked, and that was the beginning of the shooting war. But the war had a number of incidents long before shots were fired that was leading up to an open conflict. So Lincoln, the Northern Republican, did not attack the Southern Democrats to start the war. The Southern Democrats attacked first and took the fort.

I am not sure what your other statements have to do with anything. The Germans and French/British called truces in "No Man's Land" from time to time to celebrate holidays. The Ukrainians and Russians have called several ceasefires, exchanged prisoners, etc.

What does that have to do with them being bitter enemies?

I think the issue in the United States is that our biggest conflict was supposedly with ourselves. And because this issue is still unresolved in the minds of some, we are heading towards a state where our government will lose the ability to function.

So we either need to figure out how to live together or just split up.

We can't continue to pretend this is working.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

I understand about ‘one nation, indivisible,’ but have You heard about Texas planning to secede and form its own land?
I’m Russian and have many Ukrainian comrades. Some I didn’t even know that they’re Ukrainian!

[RolandCuthbert]

No Texas is not "planning" to cede. There are extremists who make the claim. But Texas depends upon disaster relief just like every other state in this union.

I am not saying all Ukrainians hate all Russians. But Russian is no longer being taught in Ukrainian schools. My Ukrainian friends no longer just blame this war on Putin. They blame it on the Russian people. Even as some of my friends are "mixed" Russian/Ukrainian.

You say you have many Ukrainian friends. So I take it that you are against this war?

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Yes. I’m a peacenik. I’m against war. It’s no good spilling precious blood for political or whatever reasons. For all I know, I myself might be part Ukrainian.

[RolandCuthbert]

I mean isn't that the same point about every single weird racial or ethnic conflict around the world? You are here trying to stir up racial issues between "Blacks" and "Whites" here in the U. S.

Do you actually believe that "Black" people in this nation are 100% African?

I already know I have European ancestry. The issue is only how much.

Racism does not care.

https://preview.redd.it/3u904m7ah9k51.jpg

https://preview.redd.it/4f4voup2y5z31.jpg?

[RolandCuthbert]

Sorry about that. Those links don't work. Believe it or not, this is the standard African-American genetic profile.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

I know many Black Yankees who claim to be partially Asian, Native American, White like Barack Obama and El-Hajj Malik. I’ve heard a dark-skinned boy claim he’s not Black. I’ve heard also that Michael Jackson is 100% Black, but that’s like the only 100% Black Yankee I know. Many people mix ethnicities. I 100% believe the genetic profile You showed me. I doubt that the census stating USA’s mixed ‘races’ is true, ie there are more mixed races than the census says.

[RolandCuthbert]

This is scientific fact. But none of us, lay claim to being "White". Some of us may lay claim to being European. Because being German, English, Irish, Italian, etc, is about culture. Not about that fictional weird race nonsense.

And of course there are dark-skinned people who say they are not "Black". You have dark-skinned Latinos, dark-skinned folks who claim they are biracial or mixed, dark-skinned folks who claim to be Arab, etc.

Because neither definition of race or culture care about the scientific standard of genetics.

Both are "subjective" definitions. Science is not about subjectivity.

Genome-wide ancestry estimates of African Americans show average proportions of 73.2% African, 24.0% European, and 0.8% Native American.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/

[HippieVeganJewslim]

So as I'm a dude of science, race matters not to me. I believe in no races. I believe in no colours. It's a shame that the questionnaires offer no HUMAN RACE as a choice to put in what race one is.

[RolandCuthbert]

Then why would you get lost in comparing the Ukrainian vs Russian situation with "Blacks" vs "Whites" in the U. S? You have always endeavored to stir the pot here with respect to racial conflict. As though it is somehow different than the conflicts in Eastern Europe.

The only difference is that racists believe their concept of race is backed up by science, but it isn't.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

I wouldn't.

[NamerOfStars]

Well, the CSA wasn't a different country; that was the issue. The war wasn't about slavery, but about several states trying to break away from the Union. And Lincoln didn't start the war; both Confederate leaders and James Buchanan deserve far more blame for that. As to other countries, well, not in North America- by 1861, everyone else had abolished it, or was part of European empires that had abolished it (though none by more than a few decades), except... Nicaragua, I think it was.

Lincoln also didn't give a damn about black people; he was as racist as pretty much anyone else of the era- he just disapproved of slavery.

Now, could the war have been avoided? Eh, probably not- there would've been SOME form of horrible conflict, at some point. But ending slavery? Sure. Just get Congress to pass a bill banning importation of foreign slaves, then use Eminent Domain to purchase every slave currently held.

It's also worth noting that the 13th Amendment didn't actually END slavery; it just ended its private practice. The SS is still thriving.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Thank You, but what’s SS? I’ve heard about traffickkking, so fucking horrible.

[NamerOfStars]

The branch of the government that manages battle slavery.

[Messianic_Monk]

Let's be clear: the confederacy was not a foreign country. They were an armed insurrection (not the fake Jan. 6th non-insurrection... I mean a REAL insurrection).

To answer your question though, Lincoln did not have a choice. The south fired the first shot on Fort Sumter. They openly declared war on the Union with this act. Slavery was so important that they were willing to fight tooth and nail for it.

Up until that point, James Buchanan tried to keep the confederate states in the union (see the Corwin amendment) but the south refused to stay in the union.

Lincoln even planned to ask the Confederacy in his inaugural address (it was later scrapped by his speech writer) "so, south... what will it be? Will it be peace or the sword?" The implication being that peace still could have been an option in Lincoln's mind. Needless to say, it didn't happen.

What sickens me is how the south conned a bunch of their soldiers and state legislators (many were not slave-holders) into believing that the war was about state rights (which is partial true... but it was the state's right to practice SLAVERY!) that the union was trampling over. Many of them were escorted to their bloody graves thinking that's what it was about. Once they realized they'd been duped, some of them fought back by refusing orders from Jefferson Davis. Meanwhile, Jefferson Davis lamented the fact that he did not have the federal authority to force some of the southern state governments to obey his orders unquestioningly.

Needless to say, Lincoln was not going to be able to negotiate with the South. The south made slavery THE issue and would refuse to back down on it. They'd even fire on the Union to preserve it.

[WhiteBoyChill]

The South would’ve collapsed in a day if other countries just stopped trading with them. So yeah. I think Lincoln’s invasion causing 630,000 deaths was a little unnecessary

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Less than a million? I think there were a lot more. More Americans died in the war than in both world wars put together.

[Mia-Wallace]

I don't know.

I know that Palestine doesn't exist.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

You’ve no idea how many ruddy Zionists exist. Many countries choose not to see it as a state. Anyone can know that the damn Yankeeland exists not. ‘Imagine there’s no countries.’ — John Lennon

[abc3643]

What "neighbouring country" are you talking about?

Mexico?

Canada?

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Confederate States of America.

[abc3643]

That was not a country.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Now you’re telling me that Palestine 🇵🇸 exists not! Are you really assuming so?

[abc3643]

I didn't make any comments about Palestine.
I am simply saying that the Confederate States of America was not a separate country.

===========
web.archive.org/.../Confederacy

Preventing Diplomatic Recognition of the Confederacy, 1861-1865
Introduction

One of the most important victories won by the United States during the Civil War was not ever fought on a battlefield. Rather, it was a series of diplomatic victories that ensured that the Confederacy would fail to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single foreign government. Although this success can be attributed to the skill of Northern diplomats, the anti-slavery sentiments of the European populace, and European diversion to crises in Poland and Denmark, the most important factor stills rises from the battlefields on American soil. The Confederate states were incapable of winning enough consecutive victories to convince European governments that they could sustain independence.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

I mean that you probably reckon Palestine exists not. Ain’t it true? Both Palestine and Dixie have their own government.

[abc3643]

The Confederate States of America do not have a government now and that's all that matters.

What is happening in the Middle East is not of my concern; it is their business to resolve as they see fit.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Dixie now has no government, right, but did have one. Did the US of A have a stable government in 1776?