4 ms·
>It's reasonable to say that full equality for black citizens was an aim of the war even if it wasn't an aim of Lincoln I find it very hard to believe that mor
by ancap 12y ago
>It's reasonable to say that full equality for black citizens was an aim of the war even if it wasn't an aim of Lincoln
I find it very hard to believe that more than a few people in the entire country had any such concept of "full equality for black citizens", let alone for it to be an aim of he war. As it was, there wasn't even a such thing as a black citizen in that day.
>After all, it's not like he started it singlehandedly.
If Lincoln did not want the war it would not have happened.
- ArkyBeagle 12y agoThe secession of South Carolina was a reaction only to Lincoln being elected, not to anything he'd done. Lincoln was elected in November; South Carolina seceeded in December. Inaugurations were done then in March. Sumter happened in April.
- ancap 12y agoSecession is not an act of war, neither did it require a war in response. Sumter, was, in effect, a non event where no humans were killed. Lincoln's reaction to Sumter, however, led to the death of nearly a million people.
- ArkyBeagle 12y agoI see two "axioms" in play - "was secession a legitimate state's right, yes or no?". As tests go, this one was pretty conclusive. The South had maybe two stratagems that produced even a draw; they did ( or could ) not choose either. I think of what we think of as "civilization" as a set of filters on humanity's basic prehistoric predilection for blood sacrifice. Sometimes these filters break down...