• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abraham Lincoln - Right or Wrong?

Henrin said:
No, he didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes he did.
Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Slavery (Including Sources)
"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

"What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 266.

"We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at New Haven, Connecticut" (March 6, 1860), p. 16.
Click to expand...
 
Henrin said:
You just went to 1865 when he was politically motivated to talk like that.
Click to expand...

Look at post 101 again. There are quotes shown from 1854 and 1860. You've been pwnd six ways to Sunday. Hopefully you learned not to say Lincoln didn't care about slaves. If not. Shrug.

Stupid is as stupid does.
 
Henrin said:
No, you were using it as a way to win the argument and treat the law as not needing to be defended as if it is always right. That is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

NO. What you are talking about is the fallacy of APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. I am not using the law to say I have won the argument. I am simply pointing out reality in the United States of America in the year 2013 and what that reality says about public accommodation and property ownership and the balance made between the two.

You, on the other hand, are getting your views about property from............. from ................ from where exactly?
 
calamity said:
Look at post 101 again. There are quotes shown from 1854 and 1860. You've been pwnd six ways to Sunday. Hopefully you learned not to say Lincoln didn't care about slaves. If not. Shrug.

Stupid is as stupid does.
Click to expand...

Actually only this quote harms me:

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone; while, on the other hand, I hold it to be equally clear, that we should never knowingly lend ourselves directly or indirectly, to prevent that slavery from dying a natural death---to find new places for it to live in, when it can no longer exist in the old." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Letter to Williamson Durley" (October 3, 1845), p. 348.
Click to expand...

The rest where either made to the public or after I was referring when he was politically motivated towards those ends.
 
Henrin said:
More fallacies by haymarket. You do not win this kind of debate by saying "this is how it is and therefore I'm right."
Click to expand...

It is obvious you do NOT understand what a fallacy is or how to identify one.

Those are your words. Not mine. You are doing battle with your own strawman of your own creation made from your own straw and in your own barn.

Again, where are you getting these rights of a property owner from anyways? They certainly do NOT come from the USA as we have already established with the verifiable evidence I provided for you.
 
haymarket said:
NO. What you are talking about is the fallacy of APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. I am not using the law to say I have won the argument. I am simply pointing out reality in the United States of America in the year 2013 and what that reality says about public accommodation and property ownership and the balance made between the two.
Click to expand...

Which apparently you aren't open to considering is wrong or open to debate, so you simply bring up the law and tell me to live with it.

You, on the other hand, are getting your views about property from............. from ................ from where exactly?
Click to expand...

I already told you when I said how ownership works.
 
Henrin said:
Which apparently you aren't open to considering is wrong or open to debate, so you simply bring up the law and tell me to live with it.



I already told you when I said how ownership works.
Click to expand...

I gave you the law on PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS to show you where my idea of the limits of ownership come from. Now its your turn. Where do your ideas of ownership come from?
 
haymarket said:
It is obvious you do NOT understand what a fallacy is or how to identify one.

Those are your words. Not mine. You are doing battle with your own strawman of your own creation made from your own straw and in your own barn.
Click to expand...

This was you:

you said:
What you said is comepletely and totally irrelevant to the real life conditions int he the USA that we all live under of our own free will.
Click to expand...

What do you call that if not a fallacy?
 
haymarket said:
I gave you the law on PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS to show you where my idea of the limits of ownership come from. Now its your turn. Where do your ideas of ownership come from?
Click to expand...

I already knew where your ideas came from and to tell you the truth that was the entire foundation of my dispute. Did you think I wasn't aware for some reason? Regardless, you were using it to win the debate.
 
Henrin said:
This was you:



What do you call that if not a fallacy?
Click to expand...

How is a statement about the real conditions both you and I live under a fallacy?
 
haymarket said:
How is a statement about the real conditions both you and I live under a fallacy?
Click to expand...

Because you were simply not stating it as a fact, but using it as a way to trump all other arguments and claim them as invalid.
 
Henrin said:
I already knew where your ideas came from and to tell you the truth that was the entire foundation of my dispute. Did you think I wasn't aware for some reason? Regardless, you were using it to win the debate.
Click to expand...

YOU - you - are the one making statements about rights that come with ownership. You live in the USA as do I. I pointed out to you that you were wrong. The law in the USA says otherwise and I provided it for you.

So the responsibility is totally and completely upon you to say where these claims about ownership are coming from because they are clearly NOT part of the real world USA that both you and I live in.

This involves NO fallacy. It involves verifiable evidence for ones claims. I provided such to you. Now its your turn to provide it to me.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Because you were simply not stating it as a fact, but using it as a way to trump all other arguments and claim them as invalid.
Click to expand...

You clearly DO NOT UNDERSTAND what a fallacy is. I am NOT saying that the reality trumps your argument. I am saying that you are arguing that owners have certain rights which they clearly DO NOT HAVE as evidenced by the real laws I provided for you.

What part of that are you not able to comprehend?

You are claiming owners have certain rights. I pointed out to you that they clearly DO NOT have those rights in USA 2013 and I provided verifiable proof of the same.

So where is your verifiable proof that owners have the rights you claim they do?
 
zstep18 said:
What law(s) are you talking about, exactly? Slavery? I don't give a damn if the people of a state who supported slavery refused to give their "consent" on eliminating slavery.
Click to expand...

Keep in context of the conversation. You said, secession wasn't legal, if it isn't legal than there must be a law that would be broke, no? (I don't recall seeing one in this regard but I was playing along for your benefit)



No. We are a perpetual Union. A state cannot unilaterally secede from the Union.
Click to expand...

No we are a Union of States,or "UNITED STATES", get it? not states of a Union. That was the way it was determined at the beginning, the tyrant he's the one who put that mishegoss in your head.

He freed slaves while enslaving a nation.
 
Henrin said:
The countries that solved it in the way I was saying it should have been done here had a bigger problem with slavery than we ever had and the rights of the black population came about faster in those areas than they did here. There is no reason to expect that it wouldn't have been even faster here than there if we did the same thing they did.

How is saying that war was the worst way possible to about solving hardships in the black population defending slavery?
Click to expand...

The whole idea that eventually the South would have gotten rid of slavery is a myth that's been perpetuated by apologists for years. The textile mills would have gone South to be closer to the cotton (as they eventually did). Slaves would have represented a ready and cheap labor source for them, and the system would be perpetuated. Too many people had too much property in slaves -- in fact, slaves represented the largest factor in economic growth in the South.

It should be noted that wealth grows roughly 30 percent over the decade of the 1850s in both the North and South. However, in the South, the value of slaves grew about 40 percent over the decade, while non-slave wealth grew at only about 25 percent.

Measuring Worth - Measuring the Value of a Slave
Click to expand...

In fact, slaves represented about half of ALL the wealth of the South (same source as above, table 4). There's no way that kind of capital investment just goes away.

What made things worse for the black people in the South was ending Reconstruction, which happened in 1877 as part of the bargain that put Rutherford Hayes in the White House. In other words, ENDING the occupation is what made it worse.
 
Some people really are mad they can't own blacks anymore. Oh the horror.

I can't own a slave so I'm not free is crazy talk.
 
captainawesome said:
Some people really are mad they can't own blacks anymore. Oh the horror.

I can't own a slave so I'm not free is crazy talk.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? No one here wants to own slaves. All I did from the start was push for a historically more effective way for blacks to gain their rights than war.

Btw, ChezC3's argument is not about owning slaves either. It's about the right of self determination.
 
Last edited:
Jack Webb said:
This is probably a bad idea for a poll. I just want to apologize right now for starting this poll. I'm already embarrassed...

Here's one opinion:

Top 10 Most Influential Presidents
By Martin Kelly, About.com Guide

"Of the 43 men who have been president of the United States, there are some truly clear choices of who were the most important and influential presidents.

1. Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln saved the Union during the American Civil War. His leadership during the war was one of no compromise but at the same time understanding that he would eventually have to unite the states once the North won the war. His actions eventually led to the abolition of slavery across the United States."

Ranking the Top Ten Most Influential Presidents

***
Here's another source:

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States

"George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

***
And another:

Lincoln wins: Honest Abe tops new presidential survey

"It's been 145 years since Abraham Lincoln appeared on a ballot, but admiration for the man who saved the union and sparked the end of slavery is as strong as ever, according to a new survey.

Lincoln finished first in a ranking by historians of the 42 former White House occupants."

Lincoln wins: Honest Abe tops new presidential survey - CNN

***
Does everyone agree?

How long was Killing Lincoln by Bill O'Reilly the New York Times best-seller? It's still in the no. 2 position right now.

I can't find anyone that's critical of Honest Abe. I guess this is a non-subject to everyone. I apologize again, I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

I think Washington 1st because without him there would be no United States. 2nd Abe Lincoln for the reason you stated, 3rd FDR, 4th Thomas Jefferson, 5th Teddy Roosevelt and in 6th I would place James Madison because of the war of 1812 which was really the 2nd revolutionary war and a loss there would have brought the U.S. back under the crown.
 
haymarket said:
So where is your verifiable proof that owners have the rights you claim they do?
Click to expand...

Ownership is the exclusive right to use and control a particular thing.
Click to expand...

Do you have exclusive right to control access to your home haymarket?
How about your person?

Would you agree that both of those are true? If you explore ownership you will find it all fits under this same umbrella. Even in collective societies those outside of that group can not use that property. However, in this case you wish to say there is a weird exception to the rule where the owner of the property does not have control of access, but instead some other person that has no claim of ownership can enter his property against his will. Tell me, how does property work in nature? Does someone have to show aggression towards the owner to use the property against his will? The answer is yes, and its really no different with this law here, or even in society as a whole. So tell me Haymarket, how is aggression towards property justified? How is this law not a violation of property rights? It's clearly a law that goes against the very nature of how property works, so there is little doubt its a violation of property rights.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
The whole idea that eventually the South would have gotten rid of slavery is a myth that's been perpetuated by apologists for years. The textile mills would have gone South to be closer to the cotton (as they eventually did). Slaves would have represented a ready and cheap labor source for them, and the system would be perpetuated. Too many people had too much property in slaves -- in fact, slaves represented the largest factor in economic growth in the South.



In fact, slaves represented about half of ALL the wealth of the South (same source as above, table 4). There's no way that kind of capital investment just goes away.

What made things worse for the black people in the South was ending Reconstruction, which happened in 1877 as part of the bargain that put Rutherford Hayes in the White House. In other words, ENDING the occupation is what made it worse.
Click to expand...

Silliness. Do you not think the countries I'm referring to where not dependent on their slaves? How do you think they were able to deal with that problem, but the south would have never been able to do so? You're just assuming that the south had something holding them back that no one else had, but that is simply not true.
 
Henrin said:
WTF? Are you actually claiming there was no campaign to go across the south doing what I said? Really?
Click to expand...

Yes, massacres and rape were not at all a common occurrence in the Union campaign in the South, nor in the Southern campaigns in the North. It is what makes incidents like Fort Pillow and the Lawrence Massacre so noteworthy. They were rare. So to reiterate once again, no it did not really occur. Destruction of property and desolation of farmland certainly, but not massacre and rapine.
 
ChezC3 said:
Keep in context of the conversation. You said, secession wasn't legal, if it isn't legal than there must be a law that would be broke, no? (I don't recall seeing one in this regard but I was playing along for your benefit)
Click to expand...

How about secession being an act of rebellion?


ChezC3 said:
No we are a Union of States,or "UNITED STATES", get it? not states of a Union. That was the way it was determined at the beginning, the tyrant he's the one who put that mishegoss in your head.

He freed slaves while enslaving a nation.
Click to expand...

Before the Constitution there was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. After the failures of the Articles of Confederation were apparent, the Constitution was ordained in order "to form a more perfect Union". We are indissoluble.
 
zstep18 said:
How about secession being an act of rebellion?
Click to expand...

It all goes back to consent of the governed. Once that is revoked any act which forces compliance from the unwilling is an act of tyranny.




Before the Constitution there was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. After the failures of the Articles of Confederation were apparent, the Constitution was ordained in order "to form a more perfect Union". We are indissoluble.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to go there, then you must be aware that the Constitution was brought about through the usurpation of power, right? The delegates having only the authority to amend the Articles of Confederation and not having any license whatsoever to completely disgard the Articles and replace them with the Constitution. You probably also know that a good majority of the delegates were delayed and absent when this usurpation of power took place. The Constitution already set into motion by that Napoleon without a spine, Hamilton and his tyrannical dogs. The delegates arriving already seeing that things were set in motion and having little ability to stop or protest the actions that had been set to motion. None of them however had the consent or the authority of the populations they came to represent, rather having to go back and convince the most prominant that their actions where what was in their best interests.

Since this usurpation took place, if there is any historical evidence of what you claim the argument of what the AoC says is irrelevant.

Further, in order for there to be a "more perfect Union" there has to be parts seperate to conjoin into a Union. States sovereign, united in purpose, by CHOICE.

When those purposes no longer align, like many, quotes from the founders have shown, seperation isn't only allowable, but prefered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom