I find it hard to accept the argument that Lincoln was acting imperialistically when there were millions of enslaved people, not to mention women, without any say in the decision to succeed from the Union.
Yes, particularly in Virginia, where armed Confederate soldiers ‘monitored’ the vote, in addition to out-of-state Confederate soldiers casting votes in the election.
The north didn’t force South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter. I find your hand waiving away the evil that was chattel slavery to be weird and gross, too.
Washington: Freedom from metropoly. Not personal freedom. You can’t expect much from those times.
Lincoln: I reference the civil war. Lincoln’s method of resolving the situation was classical imperialism.
So “war of northern aggression” for you, then?
I find it hard to accept the argument that Lincoln was acting imperialistically when there were millions of enslaved people, not to mention women, without any say in the decision to succeed from the Union.
Slavery looks no more than just an excuse. “Bad local laws” in the neighbourhood should never be a reason for annexation.
Only if “bad federal laws” (re: laws that don’t allow us to benefit from the subjugation of an entire people) aren’t a good reason for secession.
Uh, I didn’t realize you were an advocate for a wealthy minority holding secession votes at gunpoint.
Gunpoint, huh? As you say…
Yes, particularly in Virginia, where armed Confederate soldiers ‘monitored’ the vote, in addition to out-of-state Confederate soldiers casting votes in the election.
The north didn’t force South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter. I find your hand waiving away the evil that was chattel slavery to be weird and gross, too.