Reading. hmmm.

Lincoln failed to pursue any peaceful solution. That was fatal to many on both sides.

Ehhh.

I will leave the singular reading of history to the lazy teachers wanting to preach.

bobbranco said:

---

Ehhh.

I will leave the singular reading of history to the lazy teachers wanting to preach.

---

Singular reading? Ironic coming from you.

Hey I admit there is more to the Civil War and our history than that one item I proffer. But you cannot seem to accept the argument that Lincoln's intransigence was key to starting the Civil War.

Unlike you I don't consider Lincoln a saint nor do I consider all southerners to be the white devils you keep preaching about here.

bobbranco said:

---

Hey I admit there is more to the Civil War and our history than that one item I proffer. But you cannot seem to accept the argument that Lincoln's intransigence was key to starting the Civil War.

Unlike you I don't consider Lincoln a saint nor do I consider all southerners to be the white devils you keep preaching about here.

---

I consider violating the Constitution because your side lost an election, refusing to even listen to the newly elected administration and negotiate on the basis of remaining in the Union, seizing federal lands, and firing on unarmed resupply ships to be far more intransigent and the cause of conflict than the President doing his job to preserve and defend the Constitution.

A comically inept reaponse, again. Incapable of debate, repeating the same basic lines over and again across 3 pages. What's transparent is your attempts at masking the incessant virtue signaling.

claym711 said:

---

A comically inept reaponse, again. Incapable of debate, repeating the same basic lines over and again across 3 pages. What's transparent is your attempts at masking the incessant virtue signaling.

---

I've brought up several points and arguments, all of which you've ignored to harp on your own form of virtue signaling. Still haven't heard you address the substance of what I've said or what anyone else has said regarding the start of the conflict. It's telling that you can't even admit that South Carolina firing on a resupply ship in January of 1861 might say something about their own approach to the growing conflict. It's also telling that you can't admit that a President elected to preserve the Union would actually have a legitimate mandate to preserve the Union and that the anti-secession argument has strength.

Better try reading through again, as I've done each and every one of the things you claim I haven't.

Lincoln made no effort to develop a peaceful solution.

I fault him for that.

Get over your misplaced guilt.

claym711 said:

---

Better try reading through again, as I've done each and every one of the things you claim I haven't.

---

You really haven't. Multiple responses have been given to your notion that Lincoln forced the conflict or that he behaved tyrannically. You've not responded well to any of them aside from asserting your belief without strong evidence or countering any of the opposing arguments.

bobbranco said:

---

Lincoln made no effort to develop a peaceful solution.

I fault him for that.

Get over your misplaced guilt.

---

And you continue to ignore my points.

Do you fault the Confederacy for not making a serious effort to compromise and find a peaceful solution?

Dr. Watson said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Lincoln made no effort to develop a peaceful solution.

I fault him for that.

Get over your misplaced guilt.

---

And you continue to ignore my points.

Do you fault the Confederacy for not making a serious effort to compromise and find a peaceful solution?

---

I have ignored nothing. The Civil War was about slavery. Yes slavery was a horrible institution. Lincoln won no southern states. The southern states repeatedly sent peace delegations that Lincoln would not meet. Do you understand what comprises a peace delegation? Lincoln never gave the southern delegates a chance to compromise because he refused to meet. In light of this fact we will never know what would have happened because of Lincoln's refusal.

Do you get that meeting with them would have given the Southern States a legitmacy that Lincoln and many in the US did not think they had?

If I claimed I owned your house, would you meet with me in order to avoid my filing a lawsuit against you or worse oustng you from your house at gunpoint?

Only minimizations and attempted justifications of Lincolns actions can be offered in attempt to absolve him. You surely must realize the failure of that approach.

No one has attempted to claim the Southern states did not play a role in the escalation to war. You, and of course Dr, lay zero blame at Lincolns feet, where a majority actually lies.

Quote:

---

No one has attempted to claim the Southern states did not play a role in the escalation to war.

---

As I recall southerners pulled the lanyards that started the war in either January and April of 1861 (take your pick both were acts of war/rebellion), the latter date on the orders of Jefferson Davis. You only need to look there to see who had the lions share of escalating the situation to war.

bobbranco said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Lincoln made no effort to develop a peaceful solution.

I fault him for that.

Get over your misplaced guilt.

---

And you continue to ignore my points.

Do you fault the Confederacy for not making a serious effort to compromise and find a peaceful solution?

---

I have ignored nothing. The Civil War was about slavery. Yes slavery was a horrible institution. Lincoln won no southern states. The southern states repeatedly sent peace delegations that Lincoln would not meet. Do you understand what comprises a peace delegation? Lincoln never gave the southern delegates a chance to compromise because he refused to meet. In light of this fact we will never know what would have happened because of Lincoln's refusal.

---

Those delegates demanded representation as a foreign government negotiating between two separate nations. That was a complete nonstarter for the North while they were willing to compromise on other areas. So why should the Southern states escape blame for refusing to compromise on their independence?

claym711 said:

---

Only minimizations and attempted justifications of Lincolns actions can be offered in attempt to absolve him. You surely must realize the failure of that approach.

No one has attempted to claim the Southern states did not play a role in the escalation to war. You, and of course Dr, lay zero blame at Lincolns feet, where a majority actually lies.

---

A majority? Really? Firing on the Star of the West happened before he even took office. Seizing federal property took place before he took office. Seceding and demanding recognition as a separate nation took place before he took office. Try again.

Minimize, rationalize, deflect. It's the sword a losing side falls upon.

Lincoln's own cabinet advised that the actions he was considering would start the war. He then took such action. From the onset of his election through his raising an army (which spurred additions seccession), he thwarted every attempt at a peaceful resolution.

By his own word prior to the onset of hostilities, "the Union will be saved; if not, it will go down, and I will go down with it"

He never made an attempt at peace and was resolutely determined to restore the seceded states to the Union at all costs, which inevitably meant he would wage war against them. And he did so.

BQ78 said:

---

Do you get that meeting with them would have given the Southern States a legitmacy that Lincoln and many in the US did not think they had?

If I claimed I owned your house, would you meet with me in order to avoid my filing a lawsuit against you or worse oustng you from your house at gunpoint?

---

Lincoln was supposedly a lawyer.

A great lawyer would have stipulated that meeting the delegation does not recognize the southern states as independent.

Dr. Watson said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Lincoln made no effort to develop a peaceful solution.

I fault him for that.

Get over your misplaced guilt.

---

And you continue to ignore my points.

Do you fault the Confederacy for not making a serious effort to compromise and find a peaceful solution?

---

I have ignored nothing. The Civil War was about slavery. Yes slavery was a horrible institution. Lincoln won no southern states. The southern states repeatedly sent peace delegations that Lincoln would not meet. Do you understand what comprises a peace delegation? Lincoln never gave the southern delegates a chance to compromise because he refused to meet. In light of this fact we will never know what would have happened because of Lincoln's refusal.

---

Those delegates demanded representation as a foreign government negotiating between two separate nations. That was a complete nonstarter for the North while they were willing to compromise on other areas. So why should the Southern states escape blame for refusing to compromise on their independence?

---

Where do I state that the southerners did not share any blame?

This topic always gets ankle deep in mud, so, who among you have read "Lincoln Unmasked".... it has great detail regarding the causes of the Civil War.

If you're uncritically citing Thomas DiLorenzo as some kind of authority then you're probably waist-deep in the mud yourself.

claym711 said:

---

Minimize, rationalize, deflect. It's the sword a losing side falls upon.

Lincoln's own cabinet advised that the actions he was considering would start the war. He then took such action. From the onset of his election through his raising an army (which spurred additions seccession), he thwarted every attempt at a peaceful resolution.

By his own word prior to the onset of hostilities, "the Union will be saved; if not, it will go down, and I will go down with it"

He never made an attempt at peace and was resolutely determined to restore the seceded states to the Union at all costs, which inevitably meant he would wage war against them. And he did so.

---

He made many overtures for peace, many of which offended his fellow Republicans but which he thought were preferable to war. His line in the sand was recognizing secession as legal and Constitutional. The Confederacy had the same line in the sand and resorted to violence before Lincoln even came in office. Yet you claim Lincoln was the individual most responsible for the war. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

bobbranco said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Lincoln made no effort to develop a peaceful solution.

I fault him for that.

Get over your misplaced guilt.

---

And you continue to ignore my points.

Do you fault the Confederacy for not making a serious effort to compromise and find a peaceful solution?

---

I have ignored nothing. The Civil War was about slavery. Yes slavery was a horrible institution. Lincoln won no southern states. The southern states repeatedly sent peace delegations that Lincoln would not meet. Do you understand what comprises a peace delegation? Lincoln never gave the southern delegates a chance to compromise because he refused to meet. In light of this fact we will never know what would have happened because of Lincoln's refusal.

---

Those delegates demanded representation as a foreign government negotiating between two separate nations. That was a complete nonstarter for the North while they were willing to compromise on other areas. So why should the Southern states escape blame for refusing to compromise on their independence?

---

Where do I state that the southerners did not share any blame?

---

How much of the blame do they have?

How much of the blame does Lincoln have?

He asks the question and since you don't want to answer it all you can do is ask him the same question as a retort?

He skirts over everything everyone posts which does not 100% align with his position regarding this issue and posts questions such as that above as a deflection. Answer your own question. We will go from there.

claym711 said:

---

He skirts over everything everyone posts which does not 100% align with his position regarding this issue and posts questions such as that above as a deflection. Answer your own question. We will go from there.

---

Why refer to yourself in the third person? I'm still waiting for you to answer issues raised days ago.

claym711 said:

---

How much of the blame does Lincoln have?

---

For the start of the conflict? Virtually none. A little in the sense that secession was a red line he refused to countenance. But then, virtually the entire North and much of the Appalachian South refused to countenance it as well. Sending an unarmed resupply ship to a piece of federal property does not deserve blame for starting a war.

Then this discussion between you and I has little purpose beyond some information others may read in the future, unless others want to chime in.

I think that both sides feared and wanted war.
The wanted part is because both sides thought God would favor them, neither side realized how great the losses would become.

claym711 said:

---

He skirts over everything everyone posts which does not 100% align with his position regarding this issue and posts questions such as that above as a deflection. Answer your own question. We will go from there.

---

You've done the same thing throughout the thread. You ignore any facts that have been brought up no matter how many times they're brought up. Classic.

Not even remotely true. Go back and read. And, enjoy learning while you're there.

Dr. Watson said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Lincoln made no effort to develop a peaceful solution.

I fault him for that.

Get over your misplaced guilt.

---

And you continue to ignore my points.

Do you fault the Confederacy for not making a serious effort to compromise and find a peaceful solution?

---

I have ignored nothing. The Civil War was about slavery. Yes slavery was a horrible institution. Lincoln won no southern states. The southern states repeatedly sent peace delegations that Lincoln would not meet. Do you understand what comprises a peace delegation? Lincoln never gave the southern delegates a chance to compromise because he refused to meet. In light of this fact we will never know what would have happened because of Lincoln's refusal.

---

Those delegates demanded representation as a foreign government negotiating between two separate nations. That was a complete nonstarter for the North while they were willing to compromise on other areas. So why should the Southern states escape blame for refusing to compromise on their independence?

---

Where do I state that the southerners did not share any blame?

---

How much of the blame do they have?

---

The blame for the Civil War is shared.

Lincoln started the war to preserve the union not to abolish slavery.

The fact that southern states chose to secede unilaterally may or may not have been constitutional at the time but that question was only resolved with the Texas v. White ruling after the Civil War.