BF2S Forums was the American civil war, really a civil war?

ATG wrote:

Having just checked into this thread and not read every post I'll say yes, it was a battle for states rights over federalism.


Lincoln was considered a radical in many respects.

Naa.. he would have gave his left testicle to keep the union together. He really didn't want to be seen as the President that had the union split up under him. The people around him stacked the cards against him from the get go.

If you want to see some REAL shady President pull out a twenty dollar bill. That fella executed people without a trial, ignored direct orders, and more.

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Having just checked into this thread and not read every post I'll say yes, it was a battle for states rights over federalism.


Lincoln was considered a radical in many respects.

Naa.. he would have gave his left testicle to keep the union together. He really didn't want to be seen as the President that had the union split up under him. The people around him stacked the cards against him from the get go.

If you want to see some REAL shady President pull out a twenty dollar bill. That fella executed people without a trial, ignored direct orders, and more.

That's what I'm saying. Federalism didn't allow the disassociation of the union as Lincoln saw it.

I can say that many so called conservatives today would have hated Lincoln then; telling states what they could and couldn't do, taxes, etc.


Only history can accurately judge presidents which is why I allow a sliver of forgiveness for GWB.

Who knows? Same for Obama.

Lincoln was willing to make concessions. I wouldn't call him a conservative or anything else. Simply because he would have leaned either way to maintain. He walked in to a divided country.

ATG wrote:

That's what I'm saying. Federalism didn't allow the disassociation of the union as Lincolnsome republicans saw it.

you have to remember the fire-eaters ran a propoganda campaign and and achieved secession in SC before lincoln was even sworn in.  he was the new, scary republican after a succession of democrats.  he was all the excuse they needed.

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Naa.. he would have gave his left testicle to keep the union together. He really didn't want to be seen as the President that had the union split up under him. The people around him stacked the cards against him from the get go.

If you want to see some REAL shady President pull out a twenty dollar bill. That fella executed people without a trial, ignored direct orders, and more.

That's what I'm saying. Federalism didn't allow the disassociation of the union as Lincoln saw it.

I can say that many so called conservatives today would have hated Lincoln then; telling states what they could and couldn't do, taxes, etc.


Only history can accurately judge presidents which is why I allow a sliver of forgiveness for GWB.

Who knows? Same for Obama.

Lincoln was willing to make concessions. I wouldn't call him a conservative or anything else. Simply because he would have leaned either way to maintain. He walked in to a divided country.

And died in one united.

win

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_the … _Civil_War

ATG wrote:

lowing wrote:

ATG wrote:

Having just checked into this thread and not read every post I'll say yes, it was a battle for states rights over federalism.


Lincoln was considered a radical in many respects.

OK, so have I made my case? This was a war for independence and NOT a civil war?

Well, independence in that the federal government became independent of the will of the states, sure.

That is a different viewpoint. So you do not think it was a fail attempt at indpendence from a central govt. rather independence of a federal govt. from the state govts.? Yeah that is a way different point of view.