Lincoln wouldn’t have been elected if he was an abolitionist
That’s bad form on your part not mine
Europeans preferred to duel with swords.
It would be president Stephen Douglas or John Bell
I vaguely remember that Lincoln lost the popular vote but I may be wrong.
He won a plurality
Yeah that's right.
Followed by Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell
I don’t understand how anyone can engage civilly with this utter mediocrity @εïз irma εïз
Electorally it was Lincoln, Breckinridge, Bell, Douglas
That seems to be a problem unique to you, Otter.
Seems like more people than just me want you to stay in your lane
In all reality civil war would’ve happened no matter who the president was
Maybe you can start a club.
It would be a healthy outlet.
@Deleted User you haven’t uttered one argument so far
I only hear insults
I made several arguments
You just cannot read can you?
*another insult*
@εïз irma εïз you can’t make this shit up
I repeated one of my arguments twice
He's just a troll.
Don't assume rationality.
Because idiots like you scroll too fast and don’t read my arguments
And fixate on me calling out an ignoramus like irma
Give me an argument on the importance of slavery to the average Union or Confederate citizen
I never made that argument
That’s what you’re arguing
You aren’t reading
Well I did say why it was important to the average Southerner, but honestly it wasn't crazy support.
Many Southerers were also resentful of the aristocratic slaveholders.
Her original claim was that it wasn’t politically important to the north
@εïз irma εïз it wasn’t really, it was seen as the natural order of things
Then she shifted the narrative onto the average citizen
“The Civil War was about slavery to the south but didn't become an issue for the North until 1863.”
This is her original statement
The natural order argument didn't spring out of nothing though.
And it’s patently false
Radical Abolitionists did not hold power until the end of the war
You allowed her to shift the frame because you don’t read carefully
