Worst President in history ?

[Gnostic Yevon]

America had every right to take back its land the Confederacy attempted to steal in order to protect their 'pecuilar institution' (note they refer to themselves as slaveholding states, and the North as non-slaveholding states, obviously not concidence) and form their own government,

First, let me repeat the obvious, in that to claim the Confederacy seceeded in order to protect slavery is plainly false.
Second, secessioin was not, in any way, shape, or form, an act of theft. Secession was a right which every state had, and which several northern states almost used, and threatened to use, at earlier points in our nation's history.

Actually, the complaint the South had of Lincoln was that he was opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories. And he was under the impression that it would eventually die out.

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. 2

Have we no tendency to the latter condition? 3

Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination—piece of machinery, so to speak—compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider, not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning.
http://www.bartleby.com/251/1001.html

If the succession came as the result of Lincoln's victory, and Lincoln ran on an anti-slavery platform, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the South objected to the anti-slavery platform? Or where they against him because he was tall?

Also give up the riddiculous notion that they were going to end slavery in the south had the confederacy won. Ive shown u in the Confederacy's own constitution, that they would be prohibited from passing any laws that would even impair slavery EVER.

Because, of course, nobody will do anything, even look out for their own self-interest, unless the government forces them to do it.....

It was in their constitution. Constitutions are difficult to change. Before they could even modify slavery laws, they'd have to change the constitution to allow such a law to even be considered. Slavery would have remained for a very long time.

And if u beileve that they would not have forced the Union to join them had they won, u sir, might lack pretty common sense.

Either that, or I took at look at the evidence; especially since there's not a shred of evidence to support the preposterous notion that had Lincoln's conquest failed the Confederacy would have returned the favor.

Well no more than the American Revolution forced Britian to become America. The South wanted separation, not conquest.

They werent countrymen they were traitors, and treasonists, who turned their back on their country,

The Confederates exercised their right to leave a union which did not look out for their interests. This was not an attack against their nation, or an act against their nation at all, and thus the accusation of treason is plainly and blatantly false.

Let me ask you a question -- If I were to declare my home a seperate republic (looking at my username the only name I can come up with is "Republic of Spira"), form a military and a seperate government, make a big flag etc., and shoot at American troops when they come to arrest me, am I a traitor? Yes, I am.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/treason

Treason
Definition:
[n] 1. an act of deliberate betrayal
[n] 2. a crime that undermines the offender's government
[n] 3. disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior

By all three of these, if I was to declare a republic and shoot at American soldiors, I am a traitor. I am betraying my government (by shooting at them), I am undermining the government (First by declaring a republic, and then by shooting at troops), and I am showing disloyalty and subversive behavior by my actions.

hy else would they abandon their country, what other reason did they have to turn their back on the flag(as it would seem u have, just from what u've posted and ur sig)? Plz i'd like to hear what u beileve their (sarcasm) noble (/sarcasm) fight was about.

If you'd actually read the speech you'd quoted bits and pieces of, you would have seen several reasons, among them that the southern states were being forced to pay for northern infrastructure and then forced through tariffs to support northern industry at their own expense, and the fact that Lincoln's victory without carrying a single southern state indicated quite clearly that the southern states no longer had any real amount of representation in the nation's government. Time to go back and do your research again.

His first and main proposition I will give in his own language, scripture quotations and all [laughter]; I give his exact language: “‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it to cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” 13

In other words, Mr. Lincoln asserts, as a fundamental principle of this government, that there must be uniformity in the local laws and domestic institutions of each and all the States of the Union; and he therefore invites all the non-slaveholding States to band together, organize as one body, and make war upon slavery in Kentucky, upon slavery in Virginia, upon the Carolinas, upon slavery in all of the slaveholding States in this Union, and to persevere in that war until it shall be exterminated. He then notifies the slaveholding States to stand together as a unit and make an aggressive war upon the Free States of this Union with a view of establishing slavery in them all; of forcing it upon Illinois, of forcing it upon New York, upon New England, and upon every other Free State, and that they shall keep up the warfare until it has been formally established in them all. In other words, Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly and clearly a war of sections, a war of the North against the South, of the Free States against the Slave States,—a war of extermination,—to be continued relentlessly until the one or the other shall be subdued, and all the States shall either become free or become slave.

http://www.bartleby.com/251/1002.html

Slavery was a big part of the presidential election just previous to the seccession. The fear expressed here by Sen. Steven Douglas is that the North intended to forcibly end slavery in their territories and that only after such a war could the slavery issue be settled. I notice that in this entire speech, Douglas mentions no other issue that the North was forcing on them. Only slavery.