Jumpin said:
AstroGamer said: You can't blame Lincoln for all 625000 lives. The civil war was about to happen anyway. Tensions were high and compromise was failing. The election of Lincoln was merely the instigator for secession. If lincoln let the secession occur without a conflict, he would have been a worse president, putting the United States in a state of weakness and could have easily been abused starting future foreign wars in the Americas. I think one war is better than setting the country for multiple wars. Jackson also started the spoils system, which would have put people who supported him in the bureaucracy thus making most of the executive branch on his side. He also directly disobeyed the Supreme Court in causing the Trail of Tears, thus making the Supreme Court powerless unless Jackson agreed. These could easily have helped him set up a fascist state in the United States. He's one of the better President but he also had some clear problems with his leadership. It's good that he was a believer in state rights else he would have made the US into a dictatorship |
Yeah, blaming Lincoln for the deaths in a civil war is as dumb as blaming Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction and starting a war.
|
There where NO weapons of mass destruction, Bush just wanted revenge on Saddam Hussein for almost killing his father during his farther's Presidency.