2349
Comments (176)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
6
ggdsf 6 points ago +6 / -0

What most people don't realize is that Lincoln and the slaves were not the sole issue, just like the Franz Ferdinand assasination did not alone start the 1'st world war.

There was a lot, like really a lot, of tension built up around other issues, before everything exploded.

It's like sex. You don't just put the dick inside the pussy when you see the lady, there's introduction, building tension, flirting, things getting heated, building more tension, then the cock comes in, fucking starts and goes on for 5-10-15-20-25-30 whatever minutes before it explodes.

Economy and power is basically the reason for war. Always. Same with the civil war. Even though the Republican party started because they wanted to free the slaves, and that Lincoln was Anti-Slavery. The election of Lincoln being anti-slavery had more to do with wanting to hurt trade in the south because their economy was built more on picking cotton than in the north. The north still had slaves, just for other purposes like house servants.

Tensions between the north and the south had been building up for years, Lincoln was just the Final straw. Lincoln did his job as President to preserve the union with the war, he was a genious of his time. Because he tricked everyone into making the south look like the aggressor by having troops and everything stationed at Fort Sumter even after saying he will remove them, a provocative move that worked. He also never acknowledged the secession, which is why it was a civil war and not a war, and he therefore saved the union.

It doesn't mean that Lincoln did not want to end Slavery, it just means, that reality is not black and white. You can see it in a letter that Lincoln Sent, that his goal was to preserve the union, not to free the slaves, he wishes he could have done it through congress instead, and not through the emancipation proclamation. This means that he is a conservative, his line of thought is similar to that of Edmund Burke, who argued that the goal of he French Revolution was good and just, but that it should not have happened through revolution, bloodshed and battle but through more refined channels that better preserved human life and dignity.

I think this is important knowledge for any conservative, because rising tensions means either lowering tensions, or war. It does not mean slavery is good, it does not mean secession was good (back in the civil war) it means that nuances and knowledge is good.