He’s clearly biased, though. I mean, of course a runaway slave would have strong feelings about slavery. And Garrison is a fanatic who’s convinced that slavery is the ultimate evil. All the “house on fire, wife being ravished” talk. I mean, the man actually burned the Constitution. And he lives in Boston. There aren’t even any slaves in Boston. Mission accomplished, Mr. Garrison. You’ve freed the slaves of Boston. Go home now.
Bah, 1856 me says! Bah!
I voted Buchanan knowing he was a terrible person simply because he did not start a war for such a silly reason as keeping a nation together.
The ideological bent of the participants of these polls is telling. Abolitionist candidates received almost no votes prior to this election, just as they had in real life. The only reason they’re voting against Buchanan is because he didn’t take the government to war. The state worshippers of today are uncannily similar to the pietist fanatics of the Civil War era. They embraced Lincoln as “Caeser” and urged the faithful to render unto him what was “his”. Mention of slavery was few and far between in their march to domination over the people.
Neither did Lincoln. The war was started by the armed men who shot at US soldiers.
LOL – see above.
Funny how you never seem to denounce the actual “domination over the people” of the time (e.g. slavery) with the fervor you do the actions of those that actually led to the overthrow of that domination.
Yes it takes so much courage to denounce slavery with “fervor” in 2014. I would have been among the abolitionists who supported secession to hasten the demise of slavery. I also would have supported the “states rights” of the Northern states to nullify the fugitive slave law. Unfortunately states like Illinois with the Lincoln-supported Black Codes would have been unlikely to adopt such a policy. The statists of today would have been unlikely to adopt these tactics.
Would so many “political pragmatists” (as they bill themselves, they’re actually warmongers) have been abolitionist when it wasn’t popular? I doubt it. They would have made compromises because that is the “right thing to do”. They would have been Goldwater’s spineless moderates.
As a side note, I will point out that, while statists are keen to point out slavery was bad, Union slavery in the form of conscription was a-ok. Never mentioned.
It is 2014. I denounce war with fervor in 2014 because it is important to do so. I denounce the imperial presidency with fervor because it is important to do so. I denounce religious hosannas and incantations in 2014 because it is important to do so. I denounce the abuse of religious rhetoric by politicians in 2014 because it is important to do so. I denounce mercantilism and crony capitalism in 2014 because it is important to do so.
1856 Captain Amazing isn’t really sure what you’re going on about or who Goldwater is or why he attracted spineless moderates, but that Lincoln is the congressman from Illinois who lost the Republican vice presidential slot to Dayton, right? Doesn’t seem like anybody thinks of him as Caesar.
He’s also wondering why, if you’re such a strong abolitionist that you want states to ignore the fugitive slave law and to secede so as not to share the same country with slaveholders,you’re NOT supporting Fremont. Those seem more like stuff his people would say rather than supporters of Buck and the Democracy.
Some folks have been basing their vote on hindsight, some take your approach, which is fine. Still others pretend to take your approach yet allow knowledge of “future” performance color their vote.
I told you why I voted for Buchanan. It was because he didn’t go to war for silly reasons such as keeping together a “union”.
Honestly, doesn’t seem like a silly reason to me, and this is me speaking as both myself and my 1856 counterpart. Seems like preserving the Union is one of the few good reasons to go to war. And, IIRC, you supported Andrew Jackson, who (rightly, I think) was willing to send troops into South Carolina during the nullification crisis. But to let the Confederacy secede and not try for reunification either peacefully or by force would have been a great evil, and no one who wouldnt let that happen deserves to be President. Its treason, plain and simple.
You hold a ultra-nationalist view that was simply not prevalent in early American history. I fully admit that Jackson had many faults. Starting the most deadly war in American history, in terms of American lives, was not among them however. Apparently your analysis is indeed colored by your interpretation of the union. This interpretation was a minority viewpoint at best.
As a supporter of the Civil War, and Lincoln’s stated reasons for it, you are implicitly buying into the notion that the US is and always has been the perfect size. This idea was pioneered by fanatical Christian deviationists who on the other hand worshipped John Brown as a Christ-like figure. The fact that you use religious terms like “evil” to describe someone who would let secession happen is proof that today’s statist support of mass slaughter in order to perpetuate an abstract ideal is heavily ideological in nature, and highly disturbing.
You will find the vast majority of Americans today (and foreigners too) agree with Captain Amazing’s assessment, not yours. Are you right where all the world is wrong?
There’s a reason no libertarian has ever been elected to any important political office. Most people can see their beliefs are delusional.
Yet only five years later it was. I’d wager that the same people who joined the fight to preserve the Union in 1861 would have done so in 1856.
Who? That guy out in Kansas? Barely heard of him, just that time he and his boys chopped up some pro-slavery people. After Lawrence it shouldn’t have surprised anyone. Those Westerners are all wild and crazy. And who would say that the US “is and always has been the perfect size,” Dr Pangloss? No, as Fremont and others showed, there’s a lot of fine land waiting to be turned to the plow by good, free men.
Actually, he was from up in my neck of the woods in upstate New York. (Although he was born in Connecticut and also lived in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. But we have him now.)
Was Brown right in his views? Yes, slavery was a great evil that should have been abolished. Was Brown right in his actions? Hell no, he was a terrorist.
Brown got what he deserved. He was arrested, tried, and executed by the American legal system. What exactly was the south protesting? That John Brown had existed?
I think dropzone is making a point that we’re talking about the 1856 election. Brown hadn’t committed his Harpers Ferry raid yet so he was only known for his participation in the “Bloody Kansas” fighting if anything.
The vast majority of Americans hold a deeply perverse ideological view of the sanctity of the union. As I stated, it was a contorted view pioneered by religious fanatics, solidified by the Union victory, and spread by historians up until today. These historians, as most have through history, heavily favor and lust for the centralizing of power and domination over the actions of supposedly free peoples. This is taught in pubic schools.
Nor for Lincoln. Lincoln did not start any wars. Lincoln responded, as appropriate for our Commander in Chief, when we were attacked. The people who shot at US soldiers were the people who started the war.
No, we just think that the US can respond with force when it is attacked.
Those who supported slavery were evil. The leaders of the Confederacy were evil. Few people in human history have been more evil then they were. Do you deny this?
Which is out west in Kansas, not upstate New York. He moved–1856 and all. 
Cite?
That “ideology” is called Westphalian sovereignty and dates at least to 1648.
The commander who refused to acknowledge secession and decided to arm a fort in foreign waters started the war.
I don’t speak in Comic Book or in Bible Thump so my inclination is to not use words like “evil”. They were terrible people, of course, they were a government.