this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2026
4 points (83.3% liked)
AskHistorians
1205 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Washington was fighting for freedom while Lincoln was a classic imperialist.
Washington had over 300 enslaved people at Mount Vernon
I assume you’re referencing his policies towards western expansion? I don’t see how that was meaningfully different from Washington’s views as he also wanted the US to move west. Settlers being denied access to the land past the Appalachian mountains was a significant contributing factor to the revolutionary war.
Both Washington and Lincoln were comparative moderates on the issue, for that matter. Washington was an advocate for integrating Native Americans as citizens (which is paternalistic, but better than the land theft and ethnic cleansing which would come); Lincoln was an advocate for reform of treatment of Native Americans, but was busy with the US Civil War and had little opportunity to exercise any independent policy on the matter.
tbf, even pro-Independence figures of the time considered the prohibition not much more than a temporary PR measure from the Brits. The nominal prohibition wasn't a major factor, though the American interest in spreading westward was always very... prominent.
Washington: Freedom from metropoly. Not personal freedom. You can't expect much from those times.
Lincoln: I reference the civil war. Lincoln's method of resolving the situation was classical imperialism.
So "war of northern aggression" for you, then?
I find it hard to accept the argument that Lincoln was acting imperialistically when there were millions of enslaved people, not to mention women, without any say in the decision to succeed from the Union.
Slavery looks no more than just an excuse. "Bad local laws" in the neighbourhood should never be a reason for annexation.
Only if "bad federal laws" (re: laws that don't allow us to benefit from the subjugation of an entire people) aren't a good reason for secession.
Uh, I didn't realize you were an advocate for a wealthy minority holding secession votes at gunpoint.
Gunpoint, huh? As you say...
Yes, particularly in Virginia, where armed Confederate soldiers 'monitored' the vote, in addition to out-of-state Confederate soldiers casting votes in the election.
The north didn’t force South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter. I find your hand waiving away the evil that was chattel slavery to be weird and gross, too.