• 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?

Slaves and women didn't give consent to be governed by the confederate tyrant rebels. We freed them from despotic rule.
 
Jack Webb said:
Does everyone agree?
Click to expand...
Nope. Lincoln was deified by the Union during and after the Civil War, so much that even today, any unkind word about him is met with harsh criticism, and bitter accusations of racism. I'm honestly not impressed with him one bit, and don't see the appeal of his presidency.

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.
Click to expand...
Who cares? O'Reilly is just another windbag shill making a buck.

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...

Lincoln was an asshole who chose the Union over the People. His poor mishandling of the South can still be felt today.
 
Surtr said:
Nope. Lincoln was deified by the Union during and after the Civil War, so much that even today, any unkind word about him is met with harsh criticism, and bitter accusations of racism. I'm honestly not impressed with him one bit, and don't see the appeal of his presidency.


Who cares? O'Reilly is just another windbag shill making a buck.



Lincoln was an asshole who chose the Union over the People. His poor mishandling of the South can still be felt today.
Click to expand...

Defending the right to own slaves is a good indicator of racism.
 
Lincoln was different from most modern day politicians in that he possessed a great deal of moral courage. He wasn't thrilled to become president and actually had a foreboding feeling from time to time about it, but did it out of a sense of duty. He was relatively ugly, gangly, looked awkward on a horse, wore ill fitting clothes, and had a high pitched voice. His life had many more failures than most of us and he had contemplated suicide more than once. I think we love him, or at least I do, because he could accomplish so much good with such little worldly material to work with. He had the resolve to fight and win our terrible Civil War on his terms, both ending slavery and keeping the union together, and his propensity to forgive his enemies, if he hadn't been assassinated, probably would have provided a much better outcome for America's future race relations. The old saying "Every generation gets the president they deserve" was apt for his time, as our country was ready for a change and deserved his leadership for the sacrifices they were willing to make. I can't think of a better human being.
 
captainawesome said:
Defending the right to own slaves is a good indicator of racism.
Click to expand...

and moments later, Pavlov's dogs rush in to kill any statement not loaded down with adoration and lovey dovey bull**** about Lincoln by defaulting to the tired old "omg racism", because they have no other argument in their arsenal.
 
Surtr said:
and moments later, Pavlov's dogs rush in to kill any statement not loaded down with adoration and lovey dovey bull**** about Lincoln by defaulting to the tired old "omg racism", because they have no other argument in their arsenal.
Click to expand...

Well when faced with Licoln was a tyrant who wouldn't continue to honor the white man owning the black racism is the most obvious conclusion.
 
haymarket said:
I was once in a restaurant in a hotel where the Boston Celtics were staying on the road. In the table right behind me were several media people like Johnny Most, Tom Heinson, and Bob Ryan. Between all three of them, they had spent over a century in professional basketball and had seen more games than probably any other three people I could name.

They got around to what I soon found out was probably part 639 of a long going discussion on who was the greatest five players of all time. Now I do not remember who each defended that day, but I walked away with a profound respect for opinion that was based on experience, education, insight and knowledge and opinion based on god only knows what else.

My point was a simple one: when we look at polls of experts in the fields of American History and Political Science over the past seventy years, the same three men all rank as GREAT for their service as US Presidents. Even the Federalist Society sponsored polls still picked Washington, Lincoln and FDR as GREAT. And the Federalist Society is a libertarian based group.

However, libertarians and some on the right have made hating Lincoln and FDR one of their cause celebres.

So the question is why? What are they looking at or what are they ignoring that even libertarian experts are honest enough to acknowledge?
Click to expand...

No, the question is why did we take away the holidays for Washington and Lincoln's birthdays and assign a day to Martin King.
 
ChezC3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, if a group of people feel like their government is acting without their consent, it's alright to raise a rebellion?

If a government forces a group of people to free their slaves against the slave owners consent, is that an act tyranny? According to your definition, which is "any act which forces compliance from the unwilling", that is tyranny.

If that's tyranny, give me tyranny any day.
 
Ray410 said:
It's always important to note that the United States actually played a very small part in the worldwide slavery industry. Out of twelve million slaves brought to the New World, the United States only received 600,000, about 5%.

The American blacks and America hating Liberals try very hard to portray the United States as the Slavery Hub of the world, but that is simply untrue, slavery was primarily a Spanish, Portuguese and French enterprise.

Lincoln actually thought it would be good to send the blacks back to Africa, but it's difficult to find comments on that proposal from the blacks, even now.
Click to expand...

Leave it to you to turn it into "evil Libruls"

I thought the GOP was the "party of Lincoln." Yet you badmouth a great man, one of the greatest Presidents we've ever had from any party.
 
Surtr said:
and moments later, Pavlov's dogs rush in to kill any statement not loaded down with adoration and lovey dovey bull**** about Lincoln by defaulting to the tired old "omg racism", because they have no other argument in their arsenal.
Click to expand...

The same can be said to the people who view him in the worst possible light imaginable.
 
Gipper said:
Belief without action is hypocrisy. Kudos for standing up for him.
Click to expand...

No, that is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be Lincoln saying "I want to end slavery" and then start owning slaves.
 
captainawesome said:
When one says he was a tyrant that was his tyranny
Click to expand...

ChezC3? He is talking about the war itself and what it means to be governed by consent. He is not talking about slavery at all.

There is something to be said about a union not allowing itself to be split under any conditions.
 
Henrin said:
ChezC3? He is talking about the war itself and what it means to be governed by consent. He is not talking about slavery at all.

There is something to be said about a union not allowing itself to be split under any conditions.
Click to expand...

So, if slaves owners feel that their government is acting without their consent by prohibiting slavery, do they have a right to rise in rebellion against that government?
 
zstep18 said:
So, if slaves owners feel that their government is acting without their consent by prohibiting slavery, do they have a right to rise in rebellion against that government?
Click to expand...

Rebellion should not be necessary to be governed by consent. In fact, the only reason it is necessary is that the government feels it's authority is outside of the consent of the governed. In fact, the government gets its authority by the consent of the governed and if that is no longer present the government should step down. The reason for a fight is that the government refuses to recognize its place.
 
Henrin said:
Rebellion should not be necessary to be governed by consent. In fact, the only reason it is necessary is that the government feels it's authority is outside of the consent of the governed.
Click to expand...

The consent of the governed slaves and women don't seem to matter to you. Why?
 
captainawesome said:
The consent of the governed slaves and women don't seem to matter to you. Why?
Click to expand...

I'm not supporting their decision to ignore a section of the population, but there is a real problem when the government ignores the people it is governing and declares itself unbreakable.
 
Henrin said:
The government gets its authority by the consent of the governed and if that is no longer present the government should step down.
Click to expand...

Even when it comes to denying people basic rights? If tomorrow a majority of the population wished to own slaves, and the United States government refused to recognize that wish, our government should step down?

Bull****. That's not tyranny on the governments part. That is tyranny of the majority. Plain and simple.
 
Henrin said:
but there is a real problem when the government ignores the people it is governing and declares itself unbreakable.
Click to expand...

There is no problem whatsoever when a government ignores the wishes of slave owners wanting to continue owning slaves.
 
Henrin said:
I'm not supporting their decision to ignore a section of the population, but there is a real problem when the government ignores the people it is governing and declares itself unbreakable.
Click to expand...

I see it more like the South was allowed to secede and then the North just went back in and re-conquered their weak asses. White Southerners should be glad they weren't turned into slaves. If I was Abe, I'd have enslaved the whole lot of them. From Mason county Ky to the Gulf of Mexico, White Southerners should have been turned into the North's free labor sources.
 
Henrin said:
I'm not supporting their decision to ignore a section of the population, but there is a real problem when the government ignores the people it is governing and declares itself unbreakable.
Click to expand...

A majority of the population was held in bondage by a minority.

The U.S. simply ignored the will of that minority, and didn't let them steal humans and territory.
 
zstep18 said:
There is no problem whatsoever when a government ignores the wishes of slave owners wanting to continue owning slaves.
Click to expand...

I was talking about what it meant for the country after that point. Today we are all supposed to accept the peoples consent doesn't matter at all and the government has the right to maintain itself even against our own will. They are basically ignoring our consent to be governed and forcing themselves onto us even if we were to one day disagree. That is a problem.

As for your comment however, there is more to the reason for the north to fight than slaves just there was more to it for the south.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom