Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#27 - anon (01/28/2012) [-]
The funny thing is, Lincoln is looking on in disbelief when he literally suspended rights supplied by the Constitution during the Civil War.
#96 to #27 - princessktown (01/28/2012) [-]
I'm from Canada and I just bought US History for Dummies and I think after reading this, I realized just how much I need to read that book.
User avatar #80 to #27 - chinnerz (01/28/2012) [-]
Hey Anon, he SUSPENDED habeas corpus. Note he did give it back after the war. Probably the only President who would've too.
#57 to #27 - supersaiyandragons (01/28/2012) [-]
STFU anon, Lincoln did whatever deemed necessary to preserve the union; if anything else would've caused the war to last longer, more lives would've been lost, and we could have lost the war and become North USA and South CSA!
STFU anon, Lincoln did whatever deemed necessary to preserve the union; if anything else would've caused the war to last longer, more lives would've been lost, and we could have lost the war and become North USA and South CSA!
#29 to #27 - katsikis (01/28/2012) [-]
yeah, so he could WIN the civil war. habeus corpus was suspended to make the south look unattractive to great britfat, who was thinking of joining the south against the north. he went against the constitution to help not only the north but the slaves inadvertently, because what european country wants to be related to a country with slaves.
User avatar #31 to #29 - grieze (01/28/2012) [-]
but wasn't all of europe already slave free they abolished way before the US did so wouldn't the brits originally help the north because you would always help the side that will give you what you want?
#37 to #31 - ginco ONLINE (01/28/2012) [-]
Actually britfat at this time wished to cripple the expanding U.S. power and they believed that if the Confederacy were to separate not only would the north lose the agricultural supplies, but the Confederacy would also be in bad shape due to their lack of manufacturing and their one crop economy. The only reason britfat didn't ally with the South is that Abraham Lincoln made it a moral war when he introduced the Emancipation Proclamation. (Fun Fact: the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed no slaves because it stated all slaves in states of rebellion were free yet by seceding from the Union they were no longer under the federal governments jurisdiction.)
User avatar #43 to #37 - grieze (01/28/2012) [-]
well yeah its pretty logical or even obvious that britfat would attack the us because America was in a civil war making it weaker but the brits wouldn't step that far because they get their cotton from the south and need it to constantly increase their industrialization mills involving textiles. they also were making money and they didn't want to lose it all for some war they were going to get into for it, you must forgive me if im wrong but i only studied the general US history in 5th and 8th grade im in 10th now finishing Global next year ill know more in depth of US if i hopefully get into AP.
#52 to #43 - ginco ONLINE (01/28/2012) [-]
I agree with you on the fact that they would not attack the South. But if it came down to it they were on the edge of supporting the Confederacy against the north both monetarily and even with soldiers and arms. There were actually britfat companies that supplied the Confederacy with ships. Also, although the britfat did receive large imports of cotton from the south, they were becoming less reliant upon them due to their expansion of cotton growing in Egypt and India (their colonies). This is why when they were forced not to come to the south's aid they could still sustain themselves if need be. (Yeah, AP U.S. History is very informative. I suggest you do take it you'll learn a lot. :D)
User avatar #55 to #52 - grieze (01/28/2012) [-]
well yeah the private businesses are allowed to aid the south because they are independent their acts are not official gov't acts, like during the Spanish civil war spanish amerifats went to spain to fight and it wasn't seen as an act of fighting toward the us because congress didn't declare war on them. and i know i just have to get english up and then i take AP US! :D
#92 to #55 - anon (01/28/2012) [-]
Just want to throw in my 2 cents: britfat and France were supporting the CSA because they not only needed the cotton, but they also wanted to show that democracy failed. Remember that America was the first and only democratic nation at the time. They would have jumped over the pond to attack us if and only if the South won a major battle on northern soil, which they almost did at Antietam.
User avatar #662 to #92 - grieze (01/29/2012) [-]
yeah it is true because the french had the french rev which led to a lot of people getting killed especially when Robspiere came into power and had his Reign of Terror and ended up getting killed then you had napoleon who promised democracy but led the french to a major disaster twice.
User avatar #30 to #29 - lavoire (01/28/2012) [-]
Kat, you don't understand.

The ends don't justify the means if it means stripping and entire countries rights away. We probably still would have one the Civil War had he not suspended Habeus Corpus, however it probably would have took longer.
 Friends (0)