If Lincoln had to fight the Civil War today would liberals protest it?

Question

After all many of the things he did in order to win the war dwarf anything Bush has done. Guess if liberals would have had their way the north would have had to just cut and run,too bad for the slaves though.

Answer 1

What none of your answerers even seem to know is that slavery was not an issue until after the war started. The war was not over slavery it was over states rights. Lincoln may well have been a liberal after all he and Congress levied unfair taxes on the south and refused to let them trade with England at a better price. The south had no manufacturing or textiles facilities because it had a low population. The north was over crowded and very industrialized. There was a lot of money at risk if the south seceded and a potential for the collapse of the north.

Revisionist historians trying to pacify and homogenize the reasons for the war have cast it as the Godly north against the evil slave running southerners so that their is only shame for the losers. That was not the case it was a war over greed and unfair treatment and violations of states rights.

Answer 2

You should know your history better. Liberals did protest the war. The most famous today would be Henry David Thoreau-one of the greatest Americans to have ever lived.

If Lincoln had let the south leave the union, what kind of society would you conservatives have built and how long would it have lasted with so many slaves and so few whites to keep them in order.

Answer 3

You are a little confused. The conservatives wanted to protect slavery and the liberals wanted it ended. The southern conservatives thought Lincoln was a radical and that his entire party was trying to destroy their traditional way of life. Conservative northerners wanted to cut and run and make peace with the southerners.

Lincoln responded to an attack on a federal facility, Fort Sumter, and northern liberals lined up to volunteer to preserve the union and put down the rebellion.

Lincoln’s conduct of the war was perhaps not perfect but rebels and rebel sympathizers were located throughout the union and they were trying to destroy the government of the United States and establish a hostile, illegitimate foreign government on US soil. When nearly half the nation was in rebellion, you can’t compare the situation that Lincoln faced with Bush’s unwarranted invasion of a Middle Eastern country.

Answer 4

Humans are made to reason only animals use violence to settle a dispute.The civil war did not have to happen. Slavery could have been settled without ever firing a shot. Killing is not the only answer. Evolve into an intelligent human. We no longer need to use violence as an answer. Do you realize other countries ended slavery without a civil war?
Lucutus is right. Slavery was actually an after thought. Greed was the real reason. Just like the war in Iraq now. Do you really think our government would care about them if they didn't have oil?

Answer 5

Given what we now know about Lincoln and the Civil War,,, we should have kicked the South out of the Union

Answer 6

Implicit in your "question" is that war was the only way to end slavery. Which is weird, because France and Britain abolished without firing a shot. Some, including myself believe this was a major factor in the need for the Emancipation Proclamation. Making the war about slavery was not for the domestic audience, many of whom were willing to die to save the union, but not someone with a dark complexion, but to ensure that the 2 greatest powers did not recognize the confederacy.
I reject your premise.

Answer 7

i'm no longer likely to place in writing an essay, yet i could think of the conservatives ought to properly win using fact militia hierarchy has a tendency to be conservative and conservative civilians, i think of, tend to be extra valuable armed than liberals, regardless of the undeniable fact that neither area is extra committed to their reason. If the president have been extra liberal than conservative, i ask your self how the generals and admirals could stick to the orders of their commander in chief. distant places powers could revel interior the 2nd American Civil conflict and ought to properly make a contribution to the two components so we could destroy ourselves, and no IEDs could be mandatory nor could suicide assaults in any way. i do no longer think of the two area could have an element in terrain using fact the conflict could be fought over the full united states of america in all styles of terrain. i'm no youthful guy, yet i'm hoping my new granddaughter lives to be a humorous previous woman and not in any respect unearths out interior the actual worldwide the respond on your question. of direction, neither area could win. One area could in basic terms lose decrease than the different.

Answer 8

anyone that claims Lincoln was a Liberal has No understanding of History!

http://www.southernevents.org/lincolnWar.htm

read that and call Him a Liberal! He was a man that talked to god Everyday invoked His name all the Time. Would never Tolerate most Liberal edicts/......

Answer 9

I thought that the ACW was fought to free slaves. Thats liberal. any conservitive would want to keep slavery because its cheep labour to make them stinking rich

Answer 10

Lincoln was a liberal.