If Lincoln had just promised a referendum for independence to the southern states and not touched the slavery issue (which he did not give a shit about anyway) for a year or so, both the pro-slavery and state's rights movements would have been appeased, and likely nothing would have happened. Prove me wrong.
Is there any measure by which he was not a terrible President?
>Prove me wrong.
Your counterfactual analysis doesn't touch on any of the historical causation, and so is utterly vacuous in evidence.
That proposed without evidence can be dismissed likewise.
I think that's a "mic drop."
The secession of the South was literally inevitable once Lincoln was elected.
In fact, South Carolina held their secession convention immediately after he was elected just because he was a republican, even though he had been stating constantly that he did not wish to abolish slavery.
>A referendum for independence to the southern states
A referendum -of- the southern states, or of the entire country? If the former they'd obviously vote overwhelmingly in favor of secession; if the latter it'd either pass due to northern apathy or fail and be subsequently denounced by the south. And when exactly would he have forwarded this referendum? Shots were fired of Fort Sumter before Lincoln even assumed office.
>Is there any measure by which he was not a terrible President?
Is there any measure by which you are not a fucking imbecile? If this is bait, congratulations, you got me to reply.
Why would they vote for secession? Secession was only done in the first place by aristocrats in public office, you have no idea how the non-slave owning general public would have voted, especially when voting to leave could herald the possibility of becoming a land-locked enclave country within the US if certain other states don't vote the same way.
For not worshipping an incompetent warmonger who is wrongly put on a pedestal for being a human rights champion? I can deal with that.
>why is nobody giving me sources on an alternate history scenario?
You're a moron. I have two papers to research, write, properly cite, and submit in the next six days. if I want to take a break and shitpost about Abraham Lincoln on a Mongolian sweater knitting forum I'm going to, you pseudo-intellectual trash.
I'm southern and I don't hear about it a lot, maybe it has to do with the whole Texas thing - we have our own pride that went a bit better all considered.
But most of the time it's yanks bitching about hicks when I see it.
Different worlds I guess.
>if I want to take a break and shitpost about Abraham Lincoln on a Mongolian sweater knitting forum I'm going to, you pseudo-intellectual trash.
A high level of discourse is expected here. And sources and as much material as can be presented are expected for history threads.
Report your own post.
I've lived in SC/NC my entire life and never met anyone butthurt about the actual war. People only get mad when the media says the rebel flag is racist or when northerners treat the confederates as super villain equivalents to the nazis. Stop making strawmen.
I never hear about it in any manner besides historical interest. But I can guarantee every Yankee in any given Civil War thread will have more than three anti-south images on their hard drive.
How delusional are you? Northerners don't give a rat's ass about the war until someone brings it up. You're clearly not from the south, or else you'd have already encountered plenty of people who will proclaim their Dixie pride even without any yanks around to provoke them.
They would be state referendums.
>bypass the aristocratic class and state politicians so slaveholders views are less prominent
>separate referendums mean the possibility of an independent CSA being discontinuous border gore, with exclaves everywhere and even the possibility of being landlocked, very unappealing prospects to people
>uphold the values of national self-determination that the union was founded on
Our "pride" and culture is not tied to a 19th century war. I have roots in Virginia and Tennessee and I have never heard anybody bitch and moan about the war. It's just a meme that Yankees propagate because portraying the most conservative part of the Union as being hung up on """"treason""""" and hilariously outdated issues such as slavery is politically beneficial.
Worst case scenario is that one or two states leave, but will probably rejoin again eventually because who wants to live in an economically and diplomatically isolated, weak independent Republic of Alabama or Georgia?
Worst worst case scenario is that Texas leaves and that would not even have been that big a deal back then as it would be now.
But we'll never truly know because the issue was voted on by the state congresses who had a far bigger vested interest in the preservation of slavery than the general public did.
Lincoln himself was never the real issue.
The South didn't like that the Northern states could literally bypass and do whatever they wanted both in the executive and in congress without any Southern votes.
Westerner here. Northerners and Southerners are both butthurt. The North almost more in some ways. Southerners are at least accepting and genial of their loss, Northerners just shitpost "muh Sherman," "Muh Southerners are all dirty Hicks" constantly, and Southerners take the fucking b8.
We'll never know for sure, but two of the best Civil War historians (Foote and McPhearson), have both come to the conclusion that it would have happened anyways. The only real "what-if" state was Virginia, and that was mainly because of West and Northern Virginia.
Not at the time of the Civil War. There was no legal precedent for or against secession either way. One could argue (and I certainly would) that secession is basically what the Revolutionary War was, but at the same time you have phrases like "perpetual Union" in the wording of the Constitution.
If I remember correctly, the war ended in 1865, when there was no Supreme Court ruling on Secession.
Not to mention, the Supreme Court also ruled in 1862 that Lincoln was a traitor and that he was to be impeached.
The Supreme Court really only matters when it's decisions are enforced, the words in themselves are not law.
One small correction, the whole northern/southern Virginia divide wasn't really a thing back then, the red/blue divide didn't really happen until suburbs and the influx of out of state federal workers (usually left wing) moved into the state. Hell, Robert E. Lee was as southern (or old school patriotic Virginian at least) and he lived right in view of DC from across the Potomac.
The West/East divide is sort of artificial as well, WV's secession referendum was very shady and there is not much difference between us. In fact if inter-state squabbling of such a sort was still a thing and we didn't have a problem with taking in a bunch of poorly eduacted coal miners and hill people, reunification would probably have occurred at ome point during or after reconstruction.
>Not to mention, the Supreme Court also ruled in 1862 that Lincoln was a traitor and that he was to be impeached.
New to the thread, and not doubting you, but source? I've never heard this before, and I'd like to read up on it.
>commenting on the causation of the civil war
>not having read 'Freedom National' by James Oakes
>not realizing that the abolitionists accepted the constitutional right to slaves
>not realizing that, therefore, they planned to either choke slavery by surrounding it with 'free territories, free states, and free waters' and depriving it of federal support or go to war and throw the constitution out the window
>not realizing how genius this strategy was
A high level of discourse is expected here, /his/.
I made it sound more extreme than it really was. Basically Taney chimped out and wrote an opinion that Lincoln was violating the constitution, the other Justices had basically nothing to do with it.
Oh, and it was in 1861.