Originally Posted by 7mmbuster
This looks interesting.
John Wilkes Booth
Not a fan of Lincoln. I hold him highly responsible for the Civil War, which I believe could have been avoided with a more even handed approach to the problem of succession.
Instead of attempting a peaceful solution, Lincoln called out 75000 militia to put down an armed rebellion.
He skillfully painted the South into a corner, forcing them to fire the first shots and appear in the north and abroad as the aggressors.
With that said, I still think that Booths shot in Fords Theater, was the single most destructive shot fired against the Confederacy in the war.
With Lincoln gone, the last moderating influence to the black republicans was removed as well.
With the vindictive feeling of the northern population, and with a weak executive like Andrew Johnson in the White House, they enforced a strict and damaging policy of reconstruction on the South.
It caused years of depression and even longer feelings of hatred in the southern states.
I think the whole damn thing could have been avoided…
Reon

The South attacked Fort Sumter, a federal military installation. 5 states seceded and the south seized all federal property within the south's borders before Lincoln ever took office. Lincoln declared repeatedly that he would not interfere with slavery in any state in which it then existed, but would only prevent its expansion in accordance with the intent of the Founders. In a letter to Alexander Stephens, the VP of the confederacy, Lincoln said that the only substantial difference between them was that Lincoln (and the North) thought slavery was wrong and the South thought it was right. Literally, the only thing Lincoln said or did that offended the South was to declare slavery "immoral". Exactly what more "even-handed" approach would you have had him take?

Last edited by Tarquin; 02/12/24.
Tarquin