• 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?

Amendment13 said:
so you think because we was set free we are treated as equals? you gotta lot to learn little boy. blacks have suffered well beyond slavery, thats why we still got NAACP, ACLU, EEO, and afffirmative action. we need protected from all the racism alive today
Click to expand...

I don't think you're responding to what I wrote. I agree with you.
 
Henrin said:
Actually I did answer the question. Property acts in the same manner in nature and society and people treat such property in the same exact fashion. Ownership is about the exclusive control over a certain thing and when this is taken away in either place, be it society or nature violence must occur for this to happen. The law you are supporting violates this control and as a result a violation of property rights.
Click to expand...

Property does not act. People act.
 
For his time Lincoln was radically non-racist. People who wanted to send ex-slaves to Liberia thought it would be better for them as well as better for white society. They were products of their time period, so don't judge them too harshly for it.
 
MadLib said:
A belligerent status is not the same as recognition. Lincoln was obviously bluffing.
Click to expand...

It is a first step and an important one at that. Yeah, that's easy for you to say.
 
MadLib said:
Slavery implies a loss of rights. What rights did any state or person in the Union lose because of the Civil War?
Click to expand...

the right to self determination. The most important.
 
MadLib said:
You said it doesn't matter if secession was legal or not legal. Since SCOTUS ruled that it is illegal, and them being the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, the CSA committed a crime.
Click to expand...

I think you've taken what I said out of context, but anyhow, that was ruled in 1868, which happened afterward. Ex post facto. But my orginal objection under its original context still stands.
 
MadLib said:
Um, the Emancipation Proclamation? Thirteenth Amendment?
Click to expand...

The Emancipation Proclamation was empty and hollow rhetoric. Don't tell me that you can't see that.

I guess you think Bush "liberated" Arabs too?
 
Gipper said:
The Emancipation Proclamation was empty and hollow rhetoric. Don't tell me that you can't see that.

I guess you think Bush "liberated" Arabs too?
Click to expand...

The Emancipation Proclamation was an absolutely crucial pivot point in the American Civil War. That it only applied to Confederate States and rebels therein was irrelevant then and is irrelevant today. No longer was the war merely about the restoring the Union and subjugating the rebel states, it became irrevocably about abolishing slavery in way or another. Everyone knew that once the Emancipation Proclamation was passed abolitionism was in the ascendancy and the War could not end without the demise of slavery being made clear. This fact not only fired Northern moral and prompted a huge disgorgement of fundraising for the war effort, it effectively annihilated Southern political support in Europe by sending both the liberal elite and the working proletariat into the streets and newspapers railing against Confederate Slavepower. The notes and journals of prominent European leaders from Lord Russell to Napoleon III that the Emancipation Proclamation went further to kill Southern hopes for intervention than anything else.

Because despite what some apologists try and argue today, the world was generally unconcerned with Southern 'rights' arguments. What they say was the enslavement of millions and the battle between an aristocratic, slave power south in battle against an immigrant friendly, free-man, republican North.
 
Sherman123 said:
The Emancipation Proclamation was an absolutely crucial pivot point in the American Civil War. That it only applied to Confederate States and rebels therein was irrelevant then and is irrelevant today. No longer was the war merely about the restoring the Union and subjugating the rebel states, it became irrevocably about abolishing slavery in way or another. Everyone knew that once the Emancipation Proclamation was passed abolitionism was in the ascendancy and the War could not end without the demise of slavery being made clear. This fact not only fired Northern moral and prompted a huge disgorgement of fundraising for the war effort, it effectively annihilated Southern political support in Europe by sending both the liberal elite and the working proletariat into the streets and newspapers railing against Confederate Slavepower. The notes and journals of prominent European leaders from Lord Russell to Napoleon III that the Emancipation Proclamation went further to kill Southern hopes for intervention than anything else.

Because despite what some apologists try and argue today, the world was generally unconcerned with Southern 'rights' arguments. What they say was the enslavement of millions and the battle between an aristocratic, slave power south in battle against an immigrant friendly, free-man, republican North.
Click to expand...

The world was unconcerned with Southern rights, but they were also equally unconcerned with the slavery going on in the colonies. England fought us because they needed money and imperialistic power. France fought England because they have been fighting England directly and by proxy for centuries.

And the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round.
 
Gipper said:
The world was unconcerned with Southern rights, but they were also equally unconcerned with the slavery going on in the colonies. England fought us because they needed money and imperialistic power. France fought England because they have been fighting England directly and by proxy for centuries.

And the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round.
Click to expand...

That is just factually untrue. The issue of slavery was paramount in the discussion of what the approach should be to the conflict in the United States. There were massive strikes and brutal political duels over the issue of slavery and the war, it was an extremely prominent part of the discussion.
 
Henrin said:
:2brickwal Why don't you just admit you're not interested in thinking about the topic?
Click to expand...

You certainly are not helping in that regard as you seem loathe to explain where you are getting these ideas you cite.
 
I think another crucial ingredient people seem to miss when trying to demonize the Southern States and deify Lincoln and the North was the fact that it was the Southern states that led the charge to end the slave trade long before the Civil War came about. Virginia being the first. The expansion of slavery into new territory would have, or should I say could have only been possible by relocating existing slaves to new territory as the importation of slaves was made outlaw.

This dispersement would have actually been a crucial step toward eventual abolition. Meanwhile it would have eased the conditions of the slaves expotentially. The overpopulation and the burdens of cost to properly feed and house slaves would have been eased allowing for better conditions. The lack of concentration of slave-holders to abolitionists would have also significantly decreased thereby deluting the political power of slave-holders which in turn would have eventully brought about a peaceful resolution and end to the issue of slavery.

Now, as to the true reason of the War of Aggression. When 13 colonies each sovereign and independant joined together in unison vanquishing their overlord's across the pond, they devised a government. A union which promoted the dignity and individualality of their respective sovereign States. They voluntarily joined in Union. They weren't held to do so by gunpoint. They knew that their common interests could best be pursued if indivdually these sovereign and free States united. There is no historical evidence to be had to the contrary of this, the Union wasn't formed and divided into sections and regions. It was individual States who, I'll say again VOLUNTARILY joined together.

If anyone had told them, or if they at any time had the slightest idea that this bond would be permanent and inseperable, they would have never entered into contract.

History shows that the people at the time of our nation's founding understood and viewed the seperate states as independant and sovereign nations unto themselves. Revisionist history from self serving and power mad men have convinced anyone who'd think different to be mistaken.
 
ChezC3 said:
Revisionist history from self serving and power mad men have convinced anyone who'd think different to be mistaken.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, if anyone is "revising" history, it's those who believe that the Union could be split without war.
 
rocket88 said:
Opening new markets doesn't mean your product is going away.
Click to expand...

Normally, I might agree with you. The political climate at the time however would have deluted the concentration in the South, weakening the political clout and the sparse population into the new territories which allowed it (very crucial in remembering this, no one says the new territories would have wanted slavery within their borders) would have given them no real stranglehold over the political power. Thereby leading to an eventual abolition.
 
rocket88 said:
With all due respect, if anyone is "revising" history, it's those who believe that the Union could be split without war.
Click to expand...

Could have? No, No, should have...
 
For a while Ron Paul groupies were raging against Lincoln, after Ron Paul made the ludicrous statement that the federal government should have "bought" the slaves from slave-owners instead - and like zombies his groupies joined right in.

The value of slaves at that time exceeded the entire GNP of the United States and the wealthiest people in the United States were all slave owners - who had never indicated they were willing to sell their "machinery" and go out of business.

Thus, what Paul was claiming in the alternative is that 100% of the entire wealth of the nation - literally 1oo% of it - should have been given to the already wealthiest and most evil men in the United States - as a reward for being rich and evil - who would then - at best - turned their slaves into serf sharecroppers leasing the land of the super rich - with the country's economic destroyed.

The cause of the Civil War was a group of fabulously wealthy Southern slaveowners deciding if they cannot 100% control the United States government, they will create their own country in which they could - and figured with their vast wealth and the ability to buy foreign munitions, along with the then massive size and remoteness of the United States they'd get away with it. They, not Lincoln, are who is responsible for the Civil War.

As Ron Paul lamented the deaths of 2 million white people, he didn't give a damn for the tens of millions who had lived and died as slaves. And his angry white male groupies did - and still do - agree to cry only for the white people murdered and to suffer. In my opinion, racism was always the underlying core of his most devoted followers.
 
ChezC3 said:
I think you've taken what I said out of context, but anyhow, that was ruled in 1868, which happened afterward. Ex post facto. But my orginal objection under its original context still stands.
Click to expand...

It's not ex post facto since it's not a new law.
 
ChezC3 said:
It is a first step and an important one at that. Yeah, that's easy for you to say.
Click to expand...

Look at it in context. Do you really think Lincoln would be stupid enough to fight on two fronts, one on the Southern border and one in Canada?

Belligerent status is still not the same as recognition, as it can be extended to rebel groups who control 0% of territory.
 
ChezC3 said:
the right to self determination. The most important.
Click to expand...

Self determination implies nationalities being able to choose their own destiny. The states could still rule themselves, BTW. They weren't made territories so they were given all of their original rights back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom