/liberty/ - Liberty

>>91930

This.

>>91957

>Would've deported the niggers

Even if true (because even if it's something he himself wanted that's no guarantee it would have happened), that doesn't forgive all his other failures, most of which set precedent and paved the way for Wilson and all the other shitty presidents of the 20th century to do the same.

Wilson had the worst foreign policy, Lincoln had the worst domestic policy. Kinda tough to decide who had the worst fiscal policy desu

>>91925

He was ahead of his time by foreseeing the coming of internationalism and the downfall of imperialism.

>>91992

The dude didn't give a fuck about imperialism, he only cared about independence for European nations, and even then, only for countries that aren't France or Britain. His dealings with Latin America see Veracruz is indicative of his views on foreign policy.

>>91992

>downfall of Imperialism

You mean the man almost singlehandedly responsible for the rise of American interventionism?

>>91993

He clearly did care about other countries; he wanted the peace to be fair. That's even though it was the Germans and Austrians who started the war.

>>91999

And how is that imperialism?

>>92033

It's given Burgerland dominion over the Western world and a sphere of influence over part of the rest through the UN. We don't use old-fashioned colonies but it's still an empire in a lot of ways.

>>92033

Check out the number of overseas US military bases that count as American territory.

>>92032

No, not really, he wasn't concerned with the imperialism that the current empires were engaged in across the world, and was happy to divide other European nations along arbitrary lines (one of the reasons why Italy left the League of Nations in the first place), while still allowing France and the UK to have extreme agency.

>>91930

He kept the union together and literally saved America from collapsing. Hes often regarded as one of the tops presidents if not the best for that alone and I would like to hear any argument other wise other than some edgy bullshit about how great slavery was.

>>92697

If it really was primacy of the states as the issue, then how come slave states denied the right of free states to not allow them to bring their slaves into them? Or how come they shat all over the Missouri compromise and caused the massive chimpout that was bleeding Kansas? It wasnt about "states Rights" It was about the status of slave states and more importantly, the newly aquired western territories that were going to be all free. The south knew this, and they succeeded before Lincoln even took office, refused any compromise with him (he was willing to let them keep the slaves) and then fired on fort Sumter, which is what started the war.

There is literally nothing good to come out of the south seceding. Slavery is morally repugnant, its unproductive, and it hurts the common man who can not compete with literal slave labor. It also would have just destroyed America and created two weaker nations who would forever be at each others throats.

The root cause of the war was 100% slavery and its just ignorant to claim otherwise, all the southern secessionist werent even hiding this. And Lincoln wasnt just some opportunist, he actually was a abolitionist for years, and not only from a moral standpoint, but he also realized slavery was the root cause of the division between north and south in the first place, which is why he forced through the 13th amendment, thus snuffing the flame of the conflict forever.

He held this nation together and was not just some war monger out for blood like you claim.

>>92698

Another stupid faggot who thinks the war was about slavery.

>>92698

>he was willing to let them keep the slaves

So we've established that Lincoln didn't give a shit about slaves and the war wasn't about slavery.

>fired on fort Sumter

Lincoln had just ordered more troops to the fort and forbid the major in charge of it from peacefully surrendering, despite the protests of everyone involved, both Union and Confederate, to allow the fort to be peacefully surrendered. Which is to say, Lincoln intentionally encouraged the situation to escalate so that he could have cassus belli, he and the North started the war in everything but name.

>There is literally nothing good to come out of the south seceding. Slavery is morally repugnant, its unproductive

Well guess what? All the people that support slavery and that you hate so much are no longer part of your country and are no longer influencing its policies. So now your home country is more the way you want it to be and freer as a result. Secession is always good, no matter what group secedes or for what reason.

>and it hurts the common man who can not compete with literal slave labor.

Actually, the free market and paid workers tend to be more competitive and more efficient than slave labor; there's a reason its dying out coincides with advanced markets getting formed. Chances are the CSA would have abandoned slavery all on their own within a few years.

>It also would have just destroyed America and created two weaker nations who would forever be at each others throats.

Ah yes, how could I forget the great libertarian ideal of making nation-states larger and stronger?

>The root cause of the war was 100% slavery and its just ignorant to claim otherwise, all the southern secessionist werent even hiding this

You're being disingenuous by conflating secession and the war. The South seceded because of slavery, but the North pressed for war simply because the South seceded.

>>92700

>So we've established that Lincoln didn't give a shit about slaves and the war wasn't about slavery.

No we havent. Abe was a noted abolitionist, the whole reason the south secede the moment he wont the election was because they all knew this and they all knew full well he wouldnt allow slavery in the west. Youre also ignoring the part where the slave states shat all over the rights of the free states and trashed the missouri compromise, which the free states gave to them, and then sent in scabbers to Kansas which caused a bloody mini civil war.

>Secession is always good, no matter what group secedes or for what reason.

based on what?

>Actually, the free market and paid workers tend to be more competitive and more efficient than slave labor

Thats yet another reason to why it sucks and doesnt negate my point about it putting honest workers out of a job. There was actually a southern theorist named George Fitzhugh who wanted to start enslaving these poor whites as well.

>You're being disingenuous by conflating secession and the war.

No Im not. The south seceded over slavery, the war started to bring them back into the union. Slavery is the root cause of the division that led to war. I though I made that point clear when talking about why Lincoln got rid of it.

I think you are being overly autistic and not really thinking things through. Secession is automatically good, even though its over a shitty institution of slavery (which you yourself admitted to), kicked off the bloodiest war in US history, and if the south would have won, would have divided the nation into two weaker nations constantly at each others throats.

>>92699

It was. Youre a really stupid person to argue otherwise.

>>92701

>Abe was a noted abolitionist

And yet, he was perfectly willing to allow the South to keep slaves if they stayed in the Union. He didn't release the Emancipation Proclamation until after the war had already started and he needed some good propaganda for it. Even if he was an abolitionist he was clearly more than willing to set that aside in favor of his own political expedience.

>Youre also ignoring the part where

Guess what buckaroo, the Confederates weren't one giant hivemind working in concert, and the fact that one group of people did something in Kansas doesn't alter the fact that the CSA were defending against a tyrannical and aggressive power.

>based on what?

Based on the argument I just put forward, you doublenigger. If the secessionists are "good," then they're seeking freedom from tyranny and create a region that's free of it. If the secessionists are "bad," than a "bad" element has been removed from society and everyone is better off for it. You win either way.

>Thats yet another reason to why it sucks

Great, but I don't really give a shit. No one here is actually arguing in favor of slavery, and your continuing to aggressively virtue-signal against it in spite of that fact just makes you look shrill, incoherent, and emotional.

>No Im not.

You very clearly are, because they are two separate events instigated by two different entities. The South was the one that seceded, with largely peaceful intentions. The North was the one that instigated the war, and per Lincoln's own admission would have instigated the war regardless of the slavery question ("If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it"). As shown in the video you've failed to acknowledge, lincoln really wasn't a good man.

>kicked off the bloodiest war in US history

Which the North not only instigated, it was responsible for the bloodiest part of that war as Sherman burned and pillaged his way through Georgia.

> would have divided the nation into two weaker nations

Again, you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone here that thinks nation-states becoming larger, more powerful, and more totalitarian is a good thing.

>constantly at each others throats.

You've said this twice and have produced no justification for it, plausible or otherwise.

>>92699

Dubs confirm Yankees are moralizing fags that can't into punctuation.

>>92751

>I dont know why you are trying to portray Lincoln as some cartoon villian

Because your "he a gudboi who dindu nuffin" act is getting tiresome.

>And the north didnt instigate the war, the south did when it fired on fort sumter.

Already addressed here >>92700 , The Union escalated the situation, and with it the war, in all but name. Continue reading please.

>You have also just dropped the states rights angle

No you doublenigger I haven't, it was mentioned here >>92703, >>92700, and >>92697. Simply reading the constitution of the Confederacy and comparing it to the Union's is enough to prove this.

>you still havent given any actual reason as to why secession

TWICE YOU DOUBLENIGGER, TWICE HAVE I EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU. READ THE ARGUMENTS AND RESPOND TO THEM OR GIT OUT.

>hink its pretty telling that Davis, Stephens, and Lee were against secession themselves, and only took on leadership roles

Yeah, almost as if they prioritized their states and homelands before the Union. But obviously that's not true becasue the CSA didn't give a shit about state's rights.

>Fitzhugh proclaimed: "The principle of slavery is in itself right, and does not depend on difference of complexion", "Nature has made the weak in mind or body slaves … The wise and virtuous, the strong in body and mind, are born to command", and "The Declaration of Independence is exuberantly false, and aborescently fallacious."

>muh state rights!

>>92759

Fitzhugh is a fag

>Muh Proto NATO (LoN)

>Supporting Weimarsists against the spartacists

>Sending troops to Russia to help the Reactionary White Army

>Entente supported Yugo/Rom/Czech in the destruction of the Magyar and Slovak SSRs

tfu

>>91984

Maybe FDR?