Confederate soldiers=terrorists

As the descendant of at least three Confederate soldiers that I am aware of (and one Yankee) ... screw this guy with a rusty donkey cock.

I am as proud of my Southern heritage as anyone on the planet, but I'll be the first to say the Union winning was the best possible outcome because we would not have the country we have today if not for that outcome. I feel sure the nation would have come back together, but it might have taken 20-25 years, meaning westward expansion would have been delayed. I've also never been a fan of Lincoln, but his death was the worst thing that could have happened to the South. Lincoln wanted us to get back together as seamlessly as possible. His cabinet wanted the South punished. John Wilkes Booth thought he was really doing something for the South, and is what he did was open the flood gates for carpet baggers and the like.

 

What case can be made against him?

 

Dating back to when he was in Congress, not President. I didn't care for his Spot Resolutions.
U.S. troops were attacked north of the Rio Grande leading up to the war with Mexico. Lincoln more or less sided with the Mexicans.

 

It's a shit hole of a town and Nebraska is living off the fumes of its past glories....oh wait, you're talking about Abe Lincoln.

 

Thing is, it was disputed about where U.S. troops were attacked. At that time, Texas had just become a state, which Mexico was upset about because they still wanted to claim it. Not only that, but the borders of Texas were in dispute as well. Mexico had claimed the land north of the Rio Grande.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

(Granted, it's Wikipedia, FWIW)

Lincoln objected to the run-up to the war, which, in a way, resembled Bush's run-up to Iraq. (Manifest Destiny, baby!)

 

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that Shoeless Joe hails from Texas or thereabouts.

Saying you dislike Lincoln for the Spot Resolutions is like saying you can't get behind George Washington because he wasn't much of a surveyor.

 

Tennessee, actually.

There was no dispute from the U.S.'s point of view. Only the Mexicans may have disputed it, but we told them where our border was, not ask them.

 

And that's why Lincoln objected to the U.S. in the war. He wanted to see diplomacy, not guns.

 

And that's why I've never been a fan of Lincoln. The time for diplomacy was before American blood was spilled, not afterward.

 

Was at a wedding in Atlanta on Saturday in an old Catholic Church downtown. The priest mentioned the church dated back to pre-Civil War days and there was an agreement with Sherman not to destroy the place as they burned the rest of Atlanta.

And the priest referred to the war as the 'War Between the States'.

 

If the South wins, I think we are typing in German right now.

 

In other words the time for diplomacy was when that border was first being argued. Which was 1845. Lincoln didn't get to congress until 1846.