This forum seems to be filled with people with rather un-mainstream perceptions about history.

I'm not sure if I like that or not.

It is true that the American Civil War was basically about states' rights [and power], and I do believe that states DO have a Constitutional right of secession.

However, I also believe Lincoln tried to avoid war, and he certainly wished to preserve the Union.

Hm... I say this without much knowledge of it but I do think Lincoln used the slavery thing as a excuse to have a good.. excuse.
And yeah it was just about state rights, but nowadays, and still speaking without knowing it for sure, it kinda looks like in American cartoons and shit, there is always the Union winning and shit and stuff. But yeah.. :/

@Zealot: Might be true, but I've been brought up with rather untraditional views of history and am still rather uncomfortable with this forum.

I've never quite understood how people can never make the easily-made connection between states' rights and slavery. It seems to be a pretty plain causal relationship; the Northern states of the union tended toward freeing the slaves, and the Southern states didn't because their economy was, for the most part, dependent on agriculture, which was a task primarily undertaken by slave labor. When Lincoln, during his campaign, made it clear that he would not expand slavery outside of the states wherein it was legal, the Southern states seceded - the first seven states of the Confederacy left the union just before Lincoln took office. It seems pretty plain and clear that the connection between the Southern states exercising their constitutional rights and slavery must be made in order to legitimately describe why the Civil War, and even the act of secession itself, occurred.

For a political radical, I'm actually not a big fan of alternative history. That having been said, I'm still not a big fan of Lincoln, whose sympathies towards blacks were not as sincere as most perceptions of him would reflect - the first few lines of this particular statement should suffice as enough evidence for now. Freeing the slaves was, primarily, a politically-motivated move, however noble of a thing as it was; but it shouldn't be regarded as a man, despite public pressure, staying true to his convictions and wanting to free an entire race of people from slavery. He did so because it was, frankly, a popular position to hold, but his public statements tend to reflect a general dislike for blacks, and that is pretty clear. And I don't think we should forget that he suspended habeas corpus.

But he certainly wasn't the worst president. And he certainly wasn't even one of the worst presidents. He was fine, really.

The worst president was Truman.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I agree with carmen510 with regards to Lincoln's intent to keep the union intact. It's pretty clear that he wanted peace; the North didn't have terribly too much to gain from a war.

EDIT 2: Also, in response to ZK: Gramsci kicks fucking ass. That is all.

The real reason behind the slavery debate wasn't ethics, it was whether the North or South would have more power.

The less slaves there were, the lower the population of the South was, and therefore, the less influence they had over the House of Representatives.

Lincoln was a racist, that is true. I believe that instead of integrating blacks into society, he felt they wouldn't fit in with whites, and thus wanted to deport them to Africa, in particular Liberia.

So ataully Lincoln was a huge asshole, a racist, and a scumbag who wants the people to love him. Damn, and America kids get to learn he rocks. Right? I need a confirm on that.

Ah that disqusts me, I learned that Lincoln is arsehole and kids get to learn he is great, like, damn... sad.

Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to Africa, because he wanted to keep America for the whites. It was segregation, but he believed that black COULD NEVER be integrated into American society, due to racial relations and such.

This was probably one of the least racist attitudes towards blacks at the time, so you could say he was still progressive.