dc koop

I think Trump would be capable of doing a lot more if the hyenas yapping for his hide weren't doing their best to obstruct him. For example a fair and balanced deal with China, a lessening of tensions in eastern Europe and a long term solution to the mess which exists at the US-Mexican border. Just three so far.

LIncoln didn't win the civil war. He just had good Generals, Grant and Sheridan who won it for him. He didn't go to war to free the slaves either at the beginning but to preserve the Union first and foremost

civilservant

Listen to the Repubs here running down their most famous President.

'The Party of Lincoln' my ass. The party of Trump - right up to the point he leads you to a generation of political oblivion.

Boomhauer

If the South had agreed to abolish slavery, there wouldn't have been a war.

nain rouge

You are quite wrong.

It is curious that you placed the blame for the war deaths (that were, incidentally, somewhere around 650,000 to 720,000) solely on Lincoln's shoulders. If you recall, the southern forces fired the first shot at Ft. Sumter. Secondly, if you read comments and speeches by Lincoln in the 1850's and 1860's, he was definitely a committed abolitionist, not the cold-hearted pragmatist that you suggest. Thirdly, even though it was true that Lincoln's first concern was preserving the Union, the southern secessionists first, and really only, concern was in the maintaining of slavery (The nonsense that the southern propagandists like to spew about "States Rights" being their cause for going to war is grimly amusing. The "States Right" that the southerners went to war to keep was the right to maintain slavery) .

Lastly, if you want to assess moral quilt and innocence, it might do to look at Britain's unofficial involvement in the war. Countless tens of thousands of union soldiers were killed and maimed by bullets, muskets, cannons, and warships built and supplied by British industries to the Confederates (via third parties) for the sake of a nice profit. On top of this, there was food, medical supplies, and other necessities sold to the Confederates in support of their war efforts for the sake of profit.

dc koop

It was a matter of Southern grievance against what they perceived as a violation by the Federal government regarding Constitutional rights to own property. No way would they have agreed to abolish slavery. The labour costs were incredibly cheap, cotton was the main economy and plantation owners were getting rich

dc koop

You assume that all Republicans possess a sense of history. If you and others think that the poll results were incredibly stupid you are assuming that Trump must be a very poor, mediocre President. There's no reason to think that he is. Far from it. He's presiding over a sound economy, a very healthy stock market, record low unemployment and surely there must be very many black Americans also benefiting from it. He's also managed to keep us out of any new wars even if he's inherited the wars and middle east problems from another Republican President. If you want to compare Lincoln to other Republican Presidents such as Herbert Hoover who hadn't a clue how to deal with the Depression then obviously no contest. Lincoln wins hands down.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would be far more likely to lead to a generation of political oblivion

scrubbedexpat099

I always think of it as the second civil war, however it was essentially about power and various factors were used by both sides and like most situations the Hollywood version misses critical points. It certainly was not a single issue, not sure any of the major players anticipated it would be so protracted and costly.

dc koop

I thought the North imposed a naval blockade on southern ports. If the South could not get cotton through to European markets how did British arms manage to get through to the Confederate forces? Anyway if you want to assume that history would have been changed by the absence of British aid... it wouldn't. France would have supplied the Confederacy with all the aid they needed instead.

kimilseung

Lincoln started as no anti-slaver, but we see in him development and change, it went beyond political requirements, we see real commitment and conviction. Being exposed to an issue, can impact that person. That is what we see with Lincoln.
we see a similar transformation in Washington earlier, With Jefferson we see the opposite.

dc koop

I think the battle of Bull Run began to give the North a clue that it was going to be no easy victory. The southern soldiers were incredibly adept at warfare and in the use of firearms. They like many other armies faced with invasion of their lands fought with a determination to defend it at all costs. Add to that they had a brilliant leader in Robert E Lee.

scrubbedexpat099

Chicago suburb to use recreational marijuana sales tax to fund reparations program

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...es-tax-to-fund

Reparations seems to have dropped off the table, wonder if this will get it kick started.

UkWinds5353

DC, Don't let political dogma cloud your thinking. Trump was handed a thriving economy from Obama. I'm not taking sides just stating a fact. You and I know that Trump likes to claim credit for everything good and attempts to deny responsibility for anything that has gone wrong. And after Trump has trashed every person of color in the world it's highly unlikely they view Trump in a positive light. I expect a record turn out from African Americans, Hispanics and Asians in the 2020 presidential elections. More than likely they will be the deciding factor and it could be ironic that his ill bred habit of bigotry motivates the very people whos vote he will need.

UkWinds5353

Trump insulting our western allies again today. Ronald Reagan must be rolling over in his grave.

spouse of scouse

He doesn't have one stateman's bone in his entire body. Such an embarrassment for all the 'ordinary', decent folks in the US.

robin1234