best/worst US presidents and WHY!

[Etagloc]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield

Yes I get that he... apparently.... was a president.

Why is he significant?

 

[polymoog]

Because he died before he could do anything

he did not accomplish any good so he really cant be listed as one of the best ones.

 

[polymoog]

That's my point, all the rest sucked so the only ones that can be considered good are Garfield and that guy who died of a cold before they had a chance to suck.

sorry, i mistook you for someone who wanted to have a knowledgeable conversation about presidents.

 

[polymoog]

Sorry, I mistook you for someone with enough knowledge to know all leaders are trash.

great reply.

however, theres a clear distinction between the horrible ones, the bad ones, and the ones that had good intentions. most are related, masonic, and puppets to some extent, but quite a few of the earlier ones had the country going in the right direction.
if kennedy was trash, he wouldnt have been assassinated.

 

[polymoog]

a review of the real lincoln, by thomas dilorenzo



its not often that one comes across a book which dares to defy mainstream history with irrefutable facts and evidence, especially on such a revered president. this book does to lincoln what the fluoride deception does to our thoughts on fluoridation.

the text goes into far greater detail, but the following are a few points of what you were not taught about lincoln and the events during his time in office:

- lincoln was in favor of sending all blacks back to africa and wholeheartedly stated on many occasions that blacks were inferior to whites
- between 1800 and 1860, many countries ended their slavery without bloodshed, except the US.
- ending slavery was entirely feasible, and slavery was already on its way out for economic and enforcement reasons (recovering lost slaves). however, lincoln supported the fugitive slave act, helping to prolong slavery. most southerners (75%) did not even own slaves.
- by the time his time in office was over, lincoln had crushed states rights (the original intent of the founding fathers to keep the hands of government in the hands of the people) and consolidated all power to the federal government.
- many northerners did not agree with slavery but wholeheartedly believed the south had the right to secede from the union, as the state and local governments superceded the federal union. this was so widespread enough that strong secession movements formed in NYC, NJ, PA, DE and MD. those in MD who favored peaceful southern secession were arrested on lincolns orders. DE was occupied by soldiers on lincolns orders in order to prevent the legislature from discussing the issue. MD, by 1861, was under complete military occupation as many state political figures were arrested. election judges, dilorenzo wrote, were instructed to disallow any votes for candidates opposed to lincolns war.
- dilorenzo wrote, "lincoln was not opposed to secession when it served his purposes. this was proven when he orchestrated the secession of western VA from the rest of the state and set up a puppet government of the new state of west virginia in alexandria, VA.
- essentially, the union was a confederation of sovereign states. this concept has been forgotten and lost, but it did exist once as a safeguard of the people against tyranny. the states had always preceded the union, but lincoln managed to rewrite history for future america.
- during 1801 to 1817, new england considered secession from the union as they opposed the federal administration. no one questioned their right to secede.
- the emancipation proclamation created riots in NYC, as northerners no longer felt they were fighting for the union but for black freedom. the proclamation freed slaves only within confederate lines, so the union could do nothing anyway. kentucky, for example, which had not joined the confederacy, were still permitted under the proclamation to have slaves. the main reason for the proclamation was to incite rebellion in the plantations as a military objective, since at the time, the south was winning the war.
- lincoln never said that he went to war to end slavery. the war, he said, was to suppress a rebellion, NOT to free slaves.
- lincoln launched an invasion of the south without congressional approval, declared martial law, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoning thousands without trial including northern newspaper editors critical of him, censored telegraph communications, ordered federal troops to interfere with the elections in the north, deported a congressman from ohio for criticising his income tax proposal, and confiscated private property and firearms illegally. a secret police force was formed by sec. of state seward, arresting people on suspicion of disloyalty and held them without any explanation given. kansas and kentucky were placed under martial law.
- in mid 1862, union general mcclellan wrote to lincoln about fair treatment for the southern non-combatants. lincoln is said, dilorenzo writes, to have silently accepted it and then instituted a confiscation act, giving the union army a green light to do as they please. general order #11, issued by general pope of the union army, specified that all male citizens in union occupied lines must take an oath the US government or be shot and have their property seized. slaves were treated as bad as the southern whites, having their possessions ransacked as well. union soldiers often put a noose around a slaves neck and forced him to confess to the location of his owners valuables. the union army also killed all of the hogs, dogs*, cattle, and horses on sight (the best horses were taken by the officers; others were killed). although lincoln was obviously not at the forefront of the war, it is hard to imagine him not being aware of the countless atrocities going on with the unions scorched earth policy and rampant theft and destruction. matter of fact, this flies in the face of the comments made by many pro-lincoln historians who have stated he micromanaged the war.
- chief justice of the supreme court, roger taney, ruled that habeas corpus could not be suspended by executive branch (the president). only the legislature could do this for public safety issues. his decision was given to lincoln personally, enraging lincoln. lincoln simply ignored the courts decision.


lincolns actions destroyed the protections of the 9th and 10th amendments. his trespasses upon the constitution and the law began the precedent (as all wrongs do when not corrected then and there) and thus laid the foundation for the police state.

*dogs, the book explains, were shot by shermans army because they thought dogs were used to help run down escaped union prisoners.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

a review of the real lincoln, by thomas dilorenzo

View attachment 20779

its not often that one comes across a book which dares to defy mainstream history with irrefutable facts and evidence, especially on such a revered president. this book does to lincoln what the fluoride deception does to our thoughts on fluoridation.

the text goes into far greater detail, but the following are a few points of what you were not taught about lincoln and the events during his time in office:

- lincoln was in favor of sending all blacks back to africa and wholeheartedly stated on many occasions that blacks were inferior to whites
- between 1800 and 1860, many countries ended their slavery without bloodshed, except the US.
- ending slavery was entirely feasible, and slavery was already on its way out for economic and enforcement reasons (recovering lost slaves). however, lincoln supported the fugitive slave act, helping to prolong slavery. most southerners (75%) did not even own slaves.
- by the time his time in office was over, lincoln had crushed states rights (the original intent of the founding fathers to keep the hands of government in the hands of the people) and consolidated all power to the federal government.
- many northerners did not agree with slavery but wholeheartedly believed the south had the right to secede from the union, as the state and local governments superceded the federal union. this was so widespread enough that strong secession movements formed in NYC, NJ, PA, DE and MD. those in MD who favored peaceful southern secession were arrested on lincolns orders. DE was occupied by soldiers on lincolns orders in order to prevent the legislature from discussing the issue. MD, by 1861, was under complete military occupation as many state political figures were arrested. election judges, dilorenzo wrote, were instructed to disallow any votes for candidates opposed to lincolns war.
- dilorenzo wrote, "lincoln was not opposed to secession when it served his purposes. this was proven when he orchestrated the secession of western VA from the rest of the state and set up a puppet government of the new state of west virginia in alexandria, VA.
- essentially, the union was a confederation of sovereign states. this concept has been forgotten and lost, but it did exist once as a safeguard of the people against tyranny. the states had always preceded the union, but lincoln managed to rewrite history for future america.
- during 1801 to 1817, new england considered secession from the union as they opposed the federal administration. no one questioned their right to secede.
- the emancipation proclamation created riots in NYC, as northerners no longer felt they were fighting for the union but for black freedom. the proclamation freed slaves only within confederate lines, so the union could do nothing anyway. kentucky, for example, which had not joined the confederacy, were still permitted under the proclamation to have slaves. the main reason for the proclamation was to incite rebellion in the plantations as a military objective, since at the time, the south was winning the war.
- lincoln never said that he went to war to end slavery. the war, he said, was to suppress a rebellion, NOT to free slaves.
- lincoln launched an invasion of the south without congressional approval, declared martial law, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoning thousands without trial including northern newspaper editors critical of him, censored telegraph communications, ordered federal troops to interfere with the elections in the north, deported a congressman from ohio for criticising his income tax proposal, and confiscated private property and firearms illegally. a secret police force was formed by sec. of state seward, arresting people on suspicion of disloyalty and held them without any explanation given. kansas and kentucky were placed under martial law.
- in mid 1862, union general mcclellan wrote to lincoln about fair treatment for the southern non-combatants. lincoln is said, dilorenzo writes, to have silently accepted it and then instituted a confiscation act, giving the union army a green light to do as they please. general order #11, issued by general pope of the union army, specified that all male citizens in union occupied lines must take an oath the US government or be shot and have their property seized. slaves were treated as bad as the southern whites, having their possessions ransacked as well. union soldiers often put a noose around a slaves neck and forced him to confess to the location of his owners valuables. the union army also killed all of the hogs, dogs*, cattle, and horses on sight (the best horses were taken by the officers; others were killed). although lincoln was obviously not at the forefront of the war, it is hard to imagine him not being aware of the countless atrocities going on with the unions scorched earth policy and rampant theft and destruction. matter of fact, this flies in the face of the comments made by many pro-lincoln historians who have stated he micromanaged the war.
- chief justice of the supreme court, roger taney, ruled that habeas corpus could not be suspended by executive branch (the president). only the legislature could do this for public safety issues. his decision was given to lincoln personally, enraging lincoln. lincoln simply ignored the courts decision.


lincolns actions destroyed the protections of the 9th and 10th amendments. his trespasses upon the constitution and the law began the precedent (as all wrongs do when not corrected then and there) and thus laid the foundation for the police state.

*dogs, the book explains, were shot by shermans army because they thought dogs were used to help run down escaped union prisoners.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo

Never trust anyone within a mile of Mises.

That said Lincoln does not deserve the deification he gets in history books, but the vilification he gets from Lost Cause Losers is also unwarranted.

 

[polymoog]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo

Never trust anyone within a mile of Mises.

ad hominem. i wouldnt care if dilorenzo was part of the frankfurt school. bottom line is that his points are totally valid.

That said Lincoln does not deserve the deification he gets in history books, but the vilification he gets from Lost Cause Losers is also unwarranted.

either way, im sure youll want to tear down his statue.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

ad hominem. i wouldnt care if dilorenzo was part of the frankfurt school. bottom line is that his points are totally valid.



.

Totally valid to whom? You and the League of the South? Jefferson Davis did all the anti-freedom things that Lincoln did and the South is just as guilty of war crimes. Happens on all sides in every war. Read the secession letters from confederate states Moogly, it was about slavery and they admit it. Do you think it is a state right to own human beings?

Edit: if he was part of the Frankfurt school you’d be screaming “Cultural Marxism” until you had an anyeurism and you know it.

either way, im sure youll want to tear down his statue.

You’re damn right, from the Kit Carson statue in my childhood park to the Lincoln memorial tear them down and invest the maintenance money in public health or jobs programs.

 

[polymoog]

Totally valid to whom? You and the League of the South? Jefferson Davis did all the anti-freedom things that Lincoln did and the South is just as guilty of war crimes. Happens on all sides in every war. Read the secession letters from confederate states Moogly, it was about slavery and they admit it. Do you think it is a state right to own human beings?
Edit: if he was part of the Frankfurt school you’d be screaming “Cultural Marxism” until you had an anyeurism and you know it.

the post is demystifying the myth of lincoln, not a comparison to anyone else. but if you want, please state all of your evidence that davis did everything that lincoln did. as far as you saying it was about slavery, you are totally misinformed and would have been informed had you comprehended any of the facts about secession in the original post. whether the south seceded for states rights on the issue of slavery or the issue of marijuana use or if new england seceded because of their opposition to jeffersons policies is not important: the point that youre missing is that secession was completely legal and acceptable.

You’re damn right, from the Kit Carson statue in my childhood park to the Lincoln memorial tear them down and invest the maintenance money in public health or jobs programs.

pass that on to ocasio-cortez. maybe that will pay for everyone to sit home, doing absolutely nothing and get paid for it.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

the post is demystifying the myth of lincoln, not a comparison to anyone else. but if you want, please state all of your evidence that davis did everything that lincoln did. .

lol ok

"Because Richmond doubled as the state and national capital, the actions of the Confederate Congress and president deeply affected the civil liberties of Virginians, especially those who opposed secessionand favored the old union. In August 1861, the Confederate legislature passed three acts for ensuring national unity through the loyalty of its citizens. The Alien Enemies Act provided power for the government to arrest any person living in the Confederacy who did not acknowledge himself as a citizen of the Confederate States of America. This measure enabled the Confederacy to deal with secession opponents and Unionists by forcing them either to leave the country or to acknowledge their loyalty. The second step in dealing with secession opponents and Unionists came in the form of the Sequestration Act, which allowed the government to confiscate any property belonging to non-Confederate citizens."

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/civil_liberties_in_virginia_during_the_civil_war#start_entry

. as far as you saying it was about slavery, you are totally misinformed and would have been informed had you comprehended any of the facts about secession in the original post. whether the south seceded for states rights on the issue of slavery or the issue of marijuana use or if new england seceded because of their opposition to jeffersons policies is not important: the point that youre missing is that secession was completely legal and acceptable.

lol ok

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. "

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

I could go on an on man lol. Do you think owning other humans as property is a state right? Fuck your State right. State's rights don't supersede Human Right's.

 

[polymoog]

based on your evidence, lincolns thugs threatened to kill the southerners for not taking the oath. davis did not. davis didnt authorize entire towns and cities to be razed to the ground, did he? nor did he have his army go on shooting sprees.

I could go on an on man lol. Do you think owning other humans as property is a state right? Fuck your State right. State's rights don't supersede Human Right's.

oh, how moral art thou.

england ended slavery in their empire in 1840. 0 deaths.
ecuador: 1851. peru: 1854. venezela: 1854. 0 deaths.
US: 620,000 deaths on the battlefield plus hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the south, all for an institution that was in the process of falling apart in the next few years anyway, peacefully. all lincoln had to do (if he wanted to do NOTHING) was to end the fugitive slave law and let it dissolve. he couldve ended it easily if he wanted to be proactive like any other civilized leader of a slave-owning country did by simply compensating all of the slave owers the money for the slaves. once freed, the slaves would be free to work anywhere theyd like, and none of the racial bitterness, tension, and hatred caused from the war of northern aggression would even exist.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

"Confederate States of America - A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union"

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

 

[Colonel Valerio]

based on your evidence, lincolns thugs threatened to kill the southerners for not taking the oath. davis did not. davis didnt authorize entire towns and cities to be razed to the ground, did he? nor did he have his army go on shooting sprees.

I could go on an on man lol. Do you think owning other humans as property is a state right? Fuck your State right. State's rights don't supersede Human Right's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanging_at_Gainesville

whatever dude maybe Jeff just implied it

based on your evidence, lincolns thugs threatened to kill the southerners for not taking the oath. davis did not. davis didnt authorize entire towns and cities to be razed to the ground, did he? nor did he have his army go on shooting sprees.

I could go on an on man lol. Do you think owning other humans as property is a state right? Fuck your State right. State's rights don't supersede Human Right's.

oh, how moral art thou.

england ended slavery in their empire in 1840. 0 deaths.
ecuador: 1851. peru: 1854. venezela: 1854. 0 deaths.
US: 620,000 deaths on the battlefield plus hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the south, all for an institution that was in the process of falling apart in the next few years anyway, peacefully. all lincoln had to do (if he wanted to do NOTHING) was to end the fugitive slave law and let it dissolve. he couldve ended it easily if he wanted to be proactive like any other civilized leader of a slave-owning country did by simply compensating all of the slave owers the money for the slaves. once freed, the slaves would be free to work anywhere theyd like, and none of the racial bitterness, tension, and hatred caused from the war of northern aggression would even exist.

Why do they deserve compensation for owning other humans as property and why do you think slavery would have come to a natural end in North America?

It is revisionist history to assume that.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

You really think Lee wouldn't have set the North on fire on his way to get a surrender from Grant if history turned out different?

If you think he wouldn't you don't know shit about world history.

 

[polymoog]

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

yeah, so? did you think that thinking did not exist in the north, or that the northerners were "the good guys"? do you think that that line of thinking didnt exist in the north? the abolitionists only made up 2% of the population in the north. thats it. the majority who went to war for the north did NOT go to free any slaves-- they went because lincoln stated that they were needed to "save the union".
northerners would not have rioted in cities like NYC after the emancipation proclamation if they were taking the moral ground of abolitionism. "moral" northerners, in the draft riots sought out blacks in the streets and lynched them, not to mention burning down a black orphanage. and the emancipation proclamation caused 200,000 union soldiers to desert, 90,000 to flee to canada, and 120,000 to avoid conscription.
so much for the norths willingness to fight for human rights.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

yeah, so? did you think that thinking did not exist in the north, or that the northerners were "the good guys"? do you think that that line of thinking didnt exist in the north?

Lol I said any of those things where? Compared to the South yes the North had a bit of moral authority. Which isn't canonizing anyonbe from the war.

[QUOTE="polymoog, post: 197112, member: 552" "save the union".
northerners would not have rioted in cities like NYC after the emancipation proclamation if they were taking the moral ground of abolitionism. "moral" northerners, in the draft riots sought out blacks in the streets and lynched them, not to mention burning down a black orphanage. and the emancipation proclamation caused 200,000 union soldiers to desert, 90,000 to flee to canada, and 120,000 to avoid conscription.
so much for the norths willingness to fight for human rights.[/QUOTE]


I said the South fought for Slavery as I have proven. I did not state that the North fought against it, at least directly.

 

[polymoog]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanging_at_Gainesville

Why do they deserve compensation for owning other humans as property and why do you think slavery would have come to a natural end in North America?

i wish you had actually read what i posted, but i understand some topics give knee-jerk reactions to people. thats fine. ill explain.
the slaveowners have money invested in slaves. hold your moral outrage for a moment while i explain. with the loss of their investment, their plantation or whatever it was they were doing would collapse. obviously, this would lead to violence and rioting. by compensating for the lost investment, the slave owners would have the ability to reinvest that money into machinery or make the transition to simply paying men and women for their labor. the transition would have been smooth, like it was in every other country that had slaves.
as for coming to a natural end, several factors stick out. first there is the economic factor. without the fugitive slave law, it became less economical to have slaves and have them disappear to the north via the underground railroad. putting aside the fact that many northern states did not welcome blacks to move into their state, a great deal of time and energy and money would have to be invested to have that slave returned.
the advent of mechanization, like it is today, was taking a toll on some of the slave labor. i also believe that, although i dont have time to check into it, that US cotton as a cash crop at the time was beginning to get some competition from egypt. with england as the main purchaser, this didnt help cotton futures.
the second factor is that forced slave labor is never better than paid labor. thirdly, classical enlightenment philosophy was taking hold and spreading a deeper consciousness. this was eating away at the political supporters for slavery.
with all of the war alone wouldve been enough to free every southern slave and give him 40 acres of land. economic integration of blacks with whites would have smoothly led to social integration.

It is revisionist history to assume that.

i think it would be far better to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people (black and white) by waiting slavery out a few years than go through that calamity. as i stated above, it was doomed to collapse.

 

[polymoog]

You really think Lee wouldn't have set the North on fire on his way to get a surrender from Grant if history turned out different?
If you think he wouldn't you don't know shit about world history.

i dont know what he would do as i have no insight into his mind (although its been said he was of a high moral character). i would be as critical as i am with him as i am with lincoln had he committed the atrocities. why wouldnt i?

 

[Colonel Valerio]

i wish you had actually read what i posted, but i understand some topics give knee-jerk reactions to people. thats fine. ill explain.

as for coming to a natural end, several factors stick out. first there is the economic factor. without the fugitive slave law, it became less economical to have slaves and have them disappear to the north via the underground railroad. putting aside the fact that many northern states did not welcome blacks to move into their state, a great deal of time and energy and money would have to be invested to have that slave returned.
the advent of mechanization, like it is today, was taking a toll on some of the slave labor. i also believe that, although i dont have time to check into it, that US cotton as a cash crop at the time was beginning to get some competition from egypt. with england as the main purchaser, this didnt help cotton futures.
the second factor is that forced slave labor is never better than paid labor. thirdly, classical enlightenment philosophy was taking hold and spreading a deeper consciousness. this was eating away at the political supporters for slavery.


i think it would be far better to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people (black and white) by waiting slavery out a few years than go through that calamity. as i stated above, it was doomed to collapse.

Except we don't know that slavery was on it's way out.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/maps-reveal-slavery-expanded-across-united-states-180951452/

It was spreading as the country expanded, a portion of what is the American West would have been slave states further entrenching the practice. Industrialization may have lessened the need for slave labor but the south was still very much agricultural, even today a lot of farm work done requires people in fields. Also, you don't think they wouldn't just train the slaves to work in factories instead?

It probably would have ended but how long? 1888 like Brazil? How long is to long to wait? There are still 45m people that fit the definition of slave today, ( a lot in the Arab Gulf ) so there are no guarantees the South would have ever abolished it.

i dont know what he would do as i have no insight into his mind (although its been said he was of a high moral character). i would as critical as i am with him as i am with lincoln had he committed the atrocities. why wouldnt i?

The South committed war crimes as well, they just lost the war and suffered the consequences. Had the South won and marched to DC or Albany or wherever they would have employed the same scorched earth tactics. One can be opposed and find it sad what Sherman did too, without romanticizing the South.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueces_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelton_Laurel_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_Massacre_(Missouri)

I was just at the Wendy's in Appomattox a few weeks ago lol, it was cool being in the vicinity where the South finally lost. Which I will say one thing I've never seen so many people so proud of losing a war that brought the region to ruin.

 

[polymoog]

Except we don't know that slavery was on it's way out.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/maps-reveal-slavery-expanded-across-united-states-180951452/

It was spreading as the country expanded, a portion of what is the American West would have been slave states further entrenching the practice. Industrialization may have lessened the need for slave labor but the south was still very much agricultural, even today a lot of farm work done requires people in fields. Also, you don't think they wouldn't just train the slaves to work in factories instead?

It probably would have ended but how long? 1888 like Brazil? How long is to long to wait? There are still 45m people that fit the definition of slave today, ( a lot in the Arab Gulf ) so there are no guarantees the South would have ever abolished it.

The South committed war crimes as well, they just lost the war and suffered the consequences. Had the South won and marched to DC or Albany or wherever they would have employed the same scorched earth tactics. One can be opposed and find it sad what Sherman did too, without romanticizing the South.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueces_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelton_Laurel_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_Massacre_(Missouri)

I was just at the Wendy's in Appomattox a few weeks ago lol, it was cool being in the vicinity where the South finally lost. Which I will say one thing I've never seen so many people so proud of losing a war that brought the region to ruin.

i disagree with that smithsonian article. i think the interpretation of the numbers are wrong and misleading, but we can go in circles about that.
you bring up some good points for thought-- i dont know when it wouldve ended, but i personally dont think it wouldve gone on much longer. besides, it would actually be advantageous for factories at that time period to have workers who are paid a pittance instead of slaves which require food, shelter, and clothing to be under their care. remember, there were no child labor laws nor safety/hazard regulations. slave owners had to care for their slaves-- they were an investment to them as distasteful as that might sound to you. if they got hurt and were out of work, they were losing money. having a worker who was hurt was simply cast aside and replaced.

i am certainly not saying the confederacy was angelic and was totally innocent. i AM saying (and the entire crux of my review on lincoln) that the mainstream history of lincoln and the war is very slanted and has whitewashed a great deal of atrocities.

again, we dont know what the south would have done. i really dont think they wouldve went on a town burning rampage like the union army did. why? southerners are very proud of their heritage-- at least they were years ago. northerners were a far more heterogeneous group due to the influx of immigrants. established southern families took a great deal of pride in gentlemanly behavior and fair play. i dont get that impression from the northerners-- many were bitter and unwilling to fight and angry and miserable about it while the south was fighting for its existence. they had no real reason to wipe out the north because they simply (as did everyone) wanted to simply go back home. this strong pride in being from the south may have been exacerbated further because of the lost war-- due to the reconstruction misery, the southern communities knit closer together. maybe someone from the south could explain this a little better.

anyway, lincoln was never in favor of freeing the slaves-- it was never a war for moral rights. it was a war for consolidating the powers of the federal government. like i said, only 2% of the northerners were abolitionists, so he would never get elected running on a platform to free the slaves.
he deserves his vilification... and then some.