• 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?

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.

Then basically you would stand against slavery only to have slaves yourself.

You guys are evil because you have slaves.

*Defeats evil guys*

Now you're my slaves!
 
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.

So, how exactly was the United States, at the time of the Civil War, ignoring the consent of its citizens?
 
Then basically you would stand against slavery only to have slaves yourself.

You guys are evil because you have slaves.

*Defeats evil guys*

Now you're my slaves!
Now. I'm just thinking that the conquered people should be glad they weren't enslaved. Personally, I would enslave those people who proudly enslaved others just to give them a taste of their own medicine.
 
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.

you've conflated the issue.

The government didn't force a group to free their slaves, the issue of slavery was already resolved before the Civil War with the Corwin Amendment. The South won.

The government forced free men to submit and succumb to an interloping force and authority which they no longer recognized, no longer gave their consent to be governed by. After the North's War of Aggression, with its victory then the North disgarded their loss on the slavery issue and set free slaves which at the time weren't theirs to free. The Emancipation Proclamation originally freeing another country's slaves (The tyrant had no legal jurisdiction over the Confederate States of America).

It's obvious you'll choose tyranny, you support tyrants for God's sake....:2razz:
 
you've conflated the issue.

The government didn't force a group to free their slaves, the issue of slavery was already resolved before the Civil War with the Corwin Amendment. The South won.

The government forced free men to submit and succumb to an interloping force and authority which they no longer recognized, no longer gave their consent to be governed by. After the North's War of Aggression, with its victory then the North disgarded their loss on the slavery issue and set free slaves which at the time weren't theirs to free. The Emancipation Proclamation originally freeing another country's slaves (The tyrant had no legal jurisdiction over the Confederate States of America).

It's obvious you'll choose tyranny, you support tyrants for God's sake....:2razz:

The corwin amendment never passed.
 
The corwin amendment never passed.

Yes, it did. It wasn't ratified. 3 States ratified it but because the Confederacy had already formed there was little point to continue.
 
hei

Yes, it did. It wasn't ratified. 3 States ratified it but because the Confederacy had already formed there was little point to continue.

So it didn't become law, and the south didn't win.
 
you've conflated the issue.

The government didn't force a group to free their slaves, the issue of slavery was already resolved before the Civil War with the Corwin Amendment. The South won.

The government forced free men to submit and succumb to an interloping force and authority which they no longer recognized, no longer gave their consent to be governed by. After the North's War of Aggression, with its victory then the North disgarded their loss on the slavery issue and set free slaves which at the time weren't theirs to free. The Emancipation Proclamation originally freeing another country's slaves (The tyrant had no legal jurisdiction over the Confederate States of America).

It's obvious you'll choose tyranny, you support tyrants for God's sake....:2razz:
I hear that a lot.

For the side which had its ass handed to them, the South sure has a lot of chutzpah.
 
So it didn't become law, and the south didn't win.



Departing President James Buchanan endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unusual step of signing it.[13] The Corwin Amendment also has the distinction of being the only constitutional amendment offered to the states by Congress to have an actual numerical designation prematurely assigned to it by Congress—it appears as "Article Thirteen" in the proposing Congressional resolution.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:[14][15]

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Amendment was so much a given, giving the South victory over the slavery issue, that the POTUS already signed it and gave it a numerical designation.

The South already had plans of their own, their own Country with their own laws, with their own government whose authority they'd give their consent to.
 
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.

So like Indiana Jones in RAIDERS, you are just making all this up as you go along?

You claim that ownership gives you certain rights. I point out that we live in the USA and show you the law which says you do NOT have the rights you claim you do.

So where are you getting these ownership rights from?
 
Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Amendment was so much a given, giving the South victory over the slavery issue, that the POTUS already signed it and gave it a numerical designation.

The South already had plans of their own, their own Country with their own laws, with their own government whose authority they'd give their consent to.

Again, I couldn't give a damn about a proposed amendment which protects the institution of slavery.
 
So like Indiana Jones in RAIDERS, you are just making all this up as you go along?

You claim that ownership gives you certain rights. I point out that we live in the USA and show you the law which says you do NOT have the rights you claim you do.

So where are you getting these ownership rights from?

Like usual you refuse to think of a topic. If property rights calls for control of access and all other areas of property allow it in society, why is businesses different? You already know where I think ownership rights come from as I have told you before and if you actually read my last post I hinted at it strongly in case you have forgotten, but because you refuse to think the answer is nature.
 
Like usual you refuse to think of a topic. If property rights calls for control of access and all other areas of property allow it in society, why is businesses different? You already know where I think ownership rights come from as I have told you before and if you actually read my last post I hinted at it strongly in case you have forgotten, but because you refuse to think the answer is nature.

You mean nature like the woods and streams and mountains?
 
You mean nature like the woods and streams and mountains?

Yes, and if you noticed I even mentioned the condition of property in nature in my post. Why do you think I did that?
 
Yes, and if you noticed I even mentioned the condition of property in nature in my post. Why do you think I did that?

Could you explain what the wilds of nature has to do with the property laws in the United States of America where we both live?
 
"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."

Nonsense. Slavery was alive and well in the border states during the Civil War.
 
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." -Lincoln

Slavery is probably the most atrocious part of our history, and Lincoln did help put it to the end, but it was not his sole motivation for the war he fought. I see him as neither a hero or a villain.
It's always funny to me when people use that quote of Lincoln while ignoring the numerous quotes of his like the following:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." - Lincoln

It's also funny to me that, in knowing how politicians are not always authentic in their speech, people assume that Lincoln was authentic when he said that he wouldn't free slaves if he didn't have to. Hilarious. What would compel people to favor that quote over his others? What would compel people to assume that Lincoln, a politician, was being purely authentic rather than political in that statement?
 
It's always funny to me when people use that quote of Lincoln while ignoring the numerous quotes of his like the following:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." - Lincoln

It's also funny to me that, in knowing how politicians are not always authentic in their speech, people assume that Lincoln was authentic when he said that he wouldn't free slaves if he didn't have to. Hilarious. What would compel people to favor that quote over his others? What would compel people to assume that Lincoln, a politician, was being purely authentic rather than political in that statement?

Because he actually did that. He did nothing about slavery in the border states.
 
Again, I couldn't give a damn about a proposed amendment which protects the institution of slavery.

Again you change context to suit your needs...
 
Secession is beyond legality. Secession is denying the authority who is enforcing the legality.

It's not illegal if you don't recognize the authority behind the law. You don't recognize the law because you don't recognize its authority.

It then becomes a matter of force. Does the denounced authority have the capability to force its authority, and by extension its laws upon the those who don't give their consent? If it does, is this not tyranny? Yes, yes it is.

We are a country where our government's authority is derived from the consent of the governed.(supposedly) If enough people in a territory, a State revoke their consent and place it in the hands of another, than the government who lost their consent can pound sand.

Legal shmeagal...

It's not tyranny to punish a crime.
 
One thing that people who whine and cry about what an evil repressive conqueror Lincoln was often forget is that the Confederacy attacked first.

Another thing they also forget is that the Confederacy was far harsher in terms of punishing dissent than was the Union.

When they bring up that reunification and slavery quote by Lincoln, they forget his lifetime support for abolitionism. Preserving the Union was more important to him than ending slavery, but he made it clear that he had preferred slavery to end than to have kept going.
 
Could you explain what the wilds of nature has to do with the property laws in the United States of America where we both live?

Do you believe the creation of society causes property to behave differently haymarket?
 
Do you believe the creation of society causes property to behave differently haymarket?

Just how does property "behave"?

and the question you did not answer......Could you explain what the wilds of nature has to do with the property laws in the United States of America where we both live?
 
Back
Top Bottom