Redpill me on this man. Why does everyone consider this man one of the best if not the best president?

He was a fascinating man. He earned his notoriety in spite of the shit his haters heap on him.

The federal government was legally no longer functionable in the south after secession therefore lawfully the federal employees now longer could work there

Why didn't the Confederacy propose some sort of peaceful exit plan for the US to leave its forts in a coordinated fashion? Why did they chimp out like a bunch of rabid apes?

Cant trust those cucked Yankees

>Fort Sumpter

"Sumter"

Because the Lincoln Administration had no intention on letting secession go through.

There's also the whole "Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston Harbor and could lay waste to the entire city if the garrison decided to open fire" thing.

Might makes reality, but it doesn't make right.

Because our government was absolute, complete shit. If anybody involved with the Confederate federal government had been even slightly close to competent we would be posting from separate countries today.

>Tariffs
>Bad
>Tariffs being bad in the context of an industrializing America that is still very much at risk of having prices undercut by British industry.

Friedman, Google the American system and fuck off.

However, in this case it also happened to make right

99% of economists would say otherwise.

I will defend Buchanan until the end. He did nothing different than Lincoln. They were more or less on the same page the entire time, it's not Buchanon's fault that the CSA waited until a month after he left office to attack Sumter and give Lincoln a pretext to invade.

they did, they sent ambassadors to Washington multiple times to seek a payment for existing federal forts. SC declared independence in 1860 and waited until late April 1861 to retake Ft. Sumter. Sumter was a unique case because it was empty at the time of secession and was only fortified by a rogue federal regiment afterwards, therefore the CSA could declare it an act of aggression. They only retook it after the federal government sent ships to resupply it.

tariffs only help the north though, there was a reason the south hated them.

Tariffs were the reason why the south never recovered any wealth after the war ended you stupid yankee cuck

>Appeal to authority
Yes, the people who stand to benefit the most from free trade happen to support it in 2016. However, given the economic situation of the 19th century, tariffs were critical to ensuring that America didn't become a banana republic for Britain

>Who cares if we completely gut our industrial base and eliminate hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs as long as we add a dozen points to the index

>denying people self-determination with violence is right

Majority of economists agree with you.

Free trade is a synonymous for jew control, jews are on average the most intelligent people around therefore jew control is the best way world can be ran.

>Resisting violent secession with the goal of institutionalized slavery is wrong

>Free trade ELIMINATES jobs and makes people worse off

If that was what the north was doing then definitely. Too bad they weren't.

For fuck's sake Israel doesn't even have free trade you dumbass. At least the jewish marxists are somewhat consistent in their logic

Oh, were they not? Because I can't help but recall Confederates firing at American territory while codifying in their Constitution that slavery could be in no way restricted.

>violent secession
>north was first to invade and first to kill

>Implying it doesn't
forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2016/03/08/should-we-blame-trade-agreements-for-loss-of-jobs/#4a56b3da4320

Mosley warned us about where this "export boom" bullshit would take us.

>confederates firing at american territory
South Carolina already seceded and joined the CSA mate

>their Constitution that slavery could be in no way restricted.

yes and the Union was in the process of passing the Corwin Amendment which would have done the same

>Sumter doesn't count as instigating violence because no one died guys
>That makes shelling a federal fort for several hours okay

How is a bunch of dipshit Carolinians firing at a fort justification for complete annexation of a dozen states that democratically and otherwise peacefully left the union? My state didn't even leave the US until after it happened.

in all fairness the fort was owned by the federal government and not South Carolina.

>How is Confederates acting like a hostile state justification to treat them as a hostile state

Honestly, if they hadn't chimped out and had attempted to negotiate the peaceful transfer of federal holdings Lincoln might have been forced to let them walk.

No mention of inceased purchasing power in the article LoL. If we didn't have free trade you'd be paying $3000 for an iphone. Every poor nigger I see is able to somehow afford an Iphone though, I wonder how that's possible??! (Hint hint, it's because of free trade faggot)

Except the cost of living has gone up, dickhead. Even when adjusted for inflation. Turns out companies kept prices the same (or raised them) and pocketed the saved costs.

This is true, and a legitimate grievance, but the south still made bad decisions trying to address that fact. They were ultimately better off as the Union's resource colony than they would have been as Brazil with less jungle. At least they still had some voice in the federal government; they'd have no voice as Britain or France's bitch.

>They were ultimately better off as the Union's resource colony

how so, they were the losing partner in the american economy

>they would have been as Brazil with less jungle.

again an eternal meme without actual evidence. The south had hovered around 36% enslaved since the revolution while Brazil was a slave majority state. Also the southern states had stable governments reaching back into colonial times.

>At least they still had some voice in the federal government; they'd have no voice as Britain or France's bitch.

the CSA would probably ally itself with the union and the union would have to agree if they wanted cotton imports and access to the Mississippi river. Or they could just invade like what happened.

>Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of THIS STATE, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon any of the land so ceded, or structures to be erected upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated in law.

I'm pretty sure secession would qualify as a process that would be executed upon any of the land ceded.

>attacked by confederate forces
After federal military movements to the area meant to provoke the south into attacking

Is this bait?

Leftists really can't into basic economics can they? That has nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with fiat currency and central bank inflation

You really don't understand the entire conflict and thought processes over the different viewpoints in the conflict.

Sure, to the CSA they were their own entity and the fort lay within their jurisdiction and should be theirs. They recognized themselves as an independent nation. HOWEVER, the parent nation form which they split did not. You can't just declare secession from the government and be unilaterally declared sovereign, the only way the south would get that is through winning, which they didn't do.

The north still saw the south as United States territory, and the CSA, it's military, and leaders as a rebelling faction. To the north, it was a campaign to retake their lands from an insurgent group. NOT a war against a defined other power (at least not at first).

Peacefully, at first, maybe, but getting your gang together and just walking out of a unified nation without majority consent of the rest is not democratic.

Secession was a very hot-button issue, and was left out of the Constitution on purpose. I believe Lincoln's and the Union's interpretation at the time was spot on: in the case of the United States, entertaining any thought of secession as legitimate and democratically acceptable would fragment the nation and ruin the USA's prosperity, ESPECIALLY within the time period surrounding the Civil War. The only way for the US to prosper, at least in its growing stages, was to accept that once the states voted upon the Constitution and a uniting of states under one federal government, that it would be literally indivisible by any state or group of states and that union was ad perpetuum,

free trade isn't some one size fits all wonder drug. All it does is allow is make international markets more efficient, that could either hurt or help a nation based of numerous variables. It's pretty obvious that early tariffs allowed Northern industrialization to prosper by protecting it from British competition.

The debate y'all should be fighting about is whether free trade/tariffs help a certain polity/industry/demographic because their is no intrinsic benefit to either one.

>Cost of living goes up ACCOUNTING FOR INFLATION
>It's inflation's fault

Even if you weren't mentally retarded, free trade was pitched as something that would reduce cost of living. In effect, it would reduce the burden if inflation. It has not delivered in that promise. Sucking financier cock does not change this fact.

They were better off in that they had a voice in government, even if their vote was smaller. As a separate nation, they'd have no voice in the governing of whatever power they would ultimately be economically subservient to.

Regardless of the proportion of the population that was enslaved, the fact is that the South's economy was plantation based, much like Brazil. It's also worth noting that at the time, Brazil also had a history of stable government.

As for your final point, theres a lot of "ifs" there. If the Union accepted the CSA as a sovereign entity. If they accepted trade deals far less beneficial than what's they got when the south was part of the Union. If they were willing to accept a foreign power holding south bound trade hostage. If a European power didn't increase its own influence on the Confederacy. If the CSA was able to reduce its dependency on the US for consumer goods. If they were able to build up their own industry while the Union had a chokehold on industrial goods. If if if if if.

Yeah faggot, we should get rid of the income tax and then we can just pave our roads with mud, send our children to schools made out of buffalo skins, and pay our police officers in chicken eggs.

>What are tolls
>What are tariffs
>What is the sales tax
>What is the estate tax
>What is the property tax
>What is the capital gains tax

I'm not saying that the income tax is a bad thing, but let's not pretend there would be no government revenue without it. Once upon a time, Congress had to explicitly state what a specific tax was paying for. The ability to limitlessly tax the income of the population without an express goal in mind isn't something to be happy about.

>inb4 general welfare

>theres a lot of "ifs" there

yeah, which is why this entire argument is retarded. who's to say whether they would've failed or succeeded if they left, however it's pretty obvious that they went to shit while under the control of the US.

The phrase 'accounting for inflation' doesn't have any actual meaning when you have a fiat currency you fucking idiot. The value of this money is not backed by any precious metals or valuables and relies completely on "trust." Hence, you cannot gauge the value of the currency by taking aggregates or whatever retarded comparisons Keynesians do these days.

TLDR you're fucking retarded please stop regurgitating Krugman

troll detected. 80% of US fire departments are completely volunteer and we aren't struggling with arson or fires everywhere (except Commiefornia ironically)

Yes, you absolutely can measure inflation, dipshit.

Let's say there has been 400% inflation since 1980. Not unrealistic since, like you said, fiat currency does have inherent problems. In that decade, free trade build stay getting pitched. People are sceptical, but we're told that it will reduce the price of goods. A shirt that costs a dollar now will cost 85 cents after the deal is in place.

Now flash forward to 2016. There has been 400% inflation, so that shirt should cost $4, or if free trade worked as advertised, $3.40.

Except it actually costs $4.50, because the asshole company owner decided to pocket the savings instead of passing it on to the consumer. Then, since he realizes that stupid shitheads like you will just blame inflation without looking at the numbers, he tacks an extra 50 cents on, because why wouldn't he, it's free money. Oh, and the guy who used to make shirts in the American factory, he can't afford to buy much of anything, because a four year old in Thailand is doing his job for a hundredth of his salary.

But don't worry, the factory owner was able to afford an accountant, so it's net neutral on job growth.

>Except it actually costs $4.50, because the asshole company owner decided to pocket the savings instead of passing it on to the consumer

This isn't how capitalism works.

If the price goes up, you're supposed to shop around for a cheaper source, and then competition will squeeze the maximum amount of money possible.

Then why hasn't that happened?

The Confederate National government was certainly hampered with leadership problems from the beginning. Jefferson Davis originally didn't even want to be president (a job for which he ill-suited because of his lax of experience in the Executive Branch), he was hoping to become Secretary of War. John Breckinridge or Robert Toombs would have made better choices.

>Then why hasn't that happened?

Because you made a fictional scenario in which it didn't? In real life it would.

He's one of the worst presidents

started the precedent of suspending habeas corpus in war time baka desu senpai

let a bunch of laws and amendments pass while the south didnt have any votes in congress then forced the south to abide by those new laws that they didnt agree to

The habeas corpus thing I understand but it's not his fault the south decided to fuck their own shit up. Even if you go by the viewpoint of "the north recognized the CSA as still part of the union as lands to retake" then they still could've had representation, it's just that, you know, they didn't send any delegation since they were fucking themselves up.

I hardly think that's Lincoln's fault and I'd wager almost any other president would've capitalized on the situation in exactly the same manner.

The level of cognitive dissonance required of people who supported an institution of chattel slavery saying this with a straight face never ceases to amaze me

Daily Reminder that if only this "evil racist white man" (according to liberals) had been allowed to strangle the Federal Government in it's cradle, Yuri Kochiyama and other Japanese Americans would have never wound up in FDR's super-progressive Internment Camps.

My ancestors literally died for her freedom without even realizing it.

You're welcome you ungrateful Commie bastard.

>inb4 that's Olympic Gold Medal-tier mental gymnastics I just used.

>and now, with divine favor on our side, we declare war on the Confederate States of America to end the abhorrent practice of slavery and free the negros, who are definitely not subhumans and deserve to have full rights as American citizens
-said nobody in a position of power in the US government ever in the 1860s ever

Also my state joined the CSA only after the US decided to go to war against our sister states, we were prepared to stay in the US otherwise slavery or not. Get fucked you smug twit.

Reminder that the first instance of people being killed by hostile fire in the Civil War was literally Kent State 0.5 Beta

Your "sister states" attacked the United States in order to preserve the institution of slavery. You don't get points for being too cowardly to do the same until others did first.

I think its a pretty petty dick move to say "ok these guys left the union b/c they were pissed about laws we were forcing them to abide by despite none of them voting for it/lincoln being elected with no southern votes and we won the war so we're forcing them to come back into the union buuuuuttt while they're still out, let's pass a bunch of laws that we know theyll hate then lets force them to enforce those also"

And the US attacked and completely annexed a sovereign state while giving literally zero fucks about the moral bullshit you are claiming was its casus belli. How you can even attempt this sort of mental posturing trying to justify a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people with the existence of some institution that the US expressly did not give a shit about? An institution that would have ended in a few decades at most had the CSA been left to its own devices anyway, I might add. You're so full of fucking shit, just like anybody that denies the right to peaceful self-determination and calls themselves an American.

*moral posturing

>we should suck the rebels' cock because they decided to rebel

That just encourages more rebellion you fucking retard, if they wanted to vote on this shit they shouldn't have fucking REVOLTED. If anything the north should have gone with Congress's more punitive Reconstruction plan to make an example out of the Confederates.

If you're going to use this kind of rhetoric, please stop pretending you give a shit about the US in any form even slightly reminiscent of what its founders intended. What you're looking for is the British Empire or the USSR.

The casus beli was the southern states seceding and attacking federal installations. The reason they did THAT was explicitly to preserve slavery, since they didn't believe for a second that Lincoln didn't intend to end it.

Very good elementary school textbook synopsis of the war. Lincoln offered to let slavery continue to preserve his precious union many times. In the end slavery was an institution everybody was willing to preserve to fulfill their own personal pet goals. The Southerners accomplished more for blacks than Lincoln ever did by killing him and ensuring they wouldn't be carted off to Africa to starve to death or be genocided. Now quit this hyper-reductive good guy/bad guy nonsense.

'B-but people in the north were racist t-too!' does not exonerate the south and never has

When did I pretend I gave a shit about the US in any form even slightly reminiscent of what its founders intended?

"b-but the South was racist" does not exonerate Yankeedom of blatantly ignoring the principles of peaceful self-determination from the enlightenment values the US was founded on and never will.

This is history, not a Harry Potter book. There is no need to "exonerate" ourselves from an evil that is retroactively used as justification for a war that was not fought over it. If abolitionist Britain had annexed the entire United States in the 1830s with the US's legalized slavery used as justification afterwards I have no doubt you would be on here slurping on their cocks also.

Well then a total of zero people here even remotely care about your opinion.

>self determination of states is more important than the self determination of individuals

Shouldn't you be busy in China or something?

>sovereign state
No.
>Lincoln blah blah
Irrelevant to what he said. He said the South chimped out over something that wouldn't happen, which makes the South stupid and you stupid for defending it.
>le Lincoln would ship all blacks to Africa maymay
Citation needed. Hang yourself, apologist scum.

>N-No one cares!

Still doesn't change the fact that sucking rebel cock encourages further rebellion, triggeredanon.

So, yes, the hypothetical British annexation of the US in the 1830s is a-okay in your book. Thank you.

Start making arguments at any time. I'm not devoting time to responding to somebody that can't form full sentences or copy paste quotes without paraphrasing them in mongoloid meme speak.

>Very good elementary school textbook synopsis of the war.

Oh no, my feelings!

>Lincoln offered to let slavery continue to preserve his precious union many times.

Yes he did. Do you know why? Because his opposition to the institution was very well known. And because of that, the southern states did not believe him when he said repeatedly assured them he wouldn't end it. And that is explicitly why they seceded, to preserve slavery. There is no way around that.

t. George III, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, Arch-treasurer and Prince-Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg

>Start making arguments at any time.
Defend your shitty ones first. What you get back is equal to what you give. You're a retard so you get treated like one.

If you're not going to dispute my claim and only cry about how it hurts your feelings, you should probably stop responding.

>Libertards ironically defend slavery because of "states' rights"
>Libertards hate Lincoln but love Jackson

If it improved civil rights and the quality of democratic institutions, yeah.

Nationalism is for proles.

>CSA apologists in this thread
You all need to fuck off. The South had no chance of leaving without war.
And fuck off trying to demonize Lincoln and the north, as if a state with a constitutionally inalienable right to chattel slavery is in anyway defensible

Is this supposed to not make Lincoln look shitty? He was willing to doom around a million people to several more decades of slavery in order to ensure a positive political legacy for himself? How is the South's cause morally indefensible but the US being willing to throw all morals out the window just to have it's sweet sweet clay back is just ignored? You get slavery either fucking way. What was all that death and destruction for? The EVENTUAL abolishment of a practice that would not have survived the next two decades anyway as a way of destablizing the country the US was invading's economy?

What is your claim? Attempts at self-determination should be brutally put down and its perpetrators punished for a generation afterwards like Rome salting the ground at Carthage or else it encourages more secession? Nobody is disputing this, you're just an asshole.

Defend them from what? You haven't "attacked" them, you just did the Veeky Forums equivalent of repeating what somebody says back to them in a silly voice instead of arguing in real life.

You're right, the pre-Civil War United States should have been annexed by the British Empire in its entirety and incorporated into Canada. Such a barbaric slaveholding society is absolutely indefensible. Or maybe Mexico, actually, since they did the abolition thing even earlier.

My claim is that the CSA should not have been handled nicely and instead punished for their insurrection.

Your response to this was "that's mean!" but you, as you stated, are not disputing it. So I don't know why you're responding unless you're expecting me to defend it as not "assholish". But seceding was "assholish". It's almost like morality has no importance in historical discussion and you should fuck off to the philosophy threads.

Dick move yes, but technically the CSA deserved worse than just getting dicked on laws. "Technically" everyone involved in the army and government of the CSA should have been tried for treason and punished accordingly.

Yes, the leadup to the Civil War was a lot more biased against the south (and maybe a little unfairly so), but when it's all said and done they could have come out a LOT worse.

Okay, fine, if we're going to detach morality and emotions from this and talk about this like autists, your claim is still completely unfounded, because what you are proposing to "prevent" never even happened in the first place. There has only been one Civil War, and none since then.

Then why has the cost of living gone up faster than the rate of inflation?

Didn't this fucked want taxes and believe in government?

If so, then fuck this guy. True Americans support ancap darwinism.

Further civil wars haven't happened because we didn't do what the user I originally replied to suggested and be especially nice to the Confederates.

Also because the south realized how futile a war with the north would be, but I digress.

I like Jackson purely for the fact that I think he's hilarious, but honestly I really haven't met many other libertarian-oriented people that glorify him excessively. I don't see how you could unless your only education of him is through this image.