This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElwoodBlues · M
CedricH · M
@ElwoodBlues Now, that‘s simply preposterous. Lincoln was basically the cause for the secession. So without him both the civil war and thus the end of slavery would’ve been in doubt. The war and the secession were contingent on the aversion and dread the South felt about the prospect of his electoral victory in 1860.
As for Roosevelt, if Wendell Wilkie had defeated him in the pivotal year of 1940, Wilkie, who supported the lend-and-lease act and was an outspoken internationalist, would’ve most likely been equally supportive of Britain in early 1941 and would’ve reacted in the same fashion after the Pearl Harbor attack.
As for Roosevelt, if Wendell Wilkie had defeated him in the pivotal year of 1940, Wilkie, who supported the lend-and-lease act and was an outspoken internationalist, would’ve most likely been equally supportive of Britain in early 1941 and would’ve reacted in the same fashion after the Pearl Harbor attack.