- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
He consistently maintained a belief in ending slavery.
No, he didn't.
He consistently maintained a belief in ending slavery.
Hopefully, we haven't had our best president yet. I'd be pleased to be able to move Lincoln down the list a bit.
No, he didn't.
Tell that to all the people killed and raped as the north sweep through the south killing, raping and burning everything in their path. The best path forward to solve slavery was never war and death, but social evolution and eventually law. This is proven by looking at how other countries solved the problem and how long the hardships of the black population was after it was ended. In America it took another 100 years for things to start working out, but in other parts of the world that was not necessary.
i mean by social pressure. In any event, remember what I already said, the next 100 years of black hardship would have never happened if the war did not occur. Slavery would have ended and you would have found that people would have been far more willing to give blacks equal rights across the board in a much faster time frame. Yes, the first step would have been slightly longer, but the following steps would have been much, much shorter. The fact is history shows that war to solve slavery is the least efficient way towards the end goal of equal rights.
The people who are angry that slavery is illegal just perplex me.
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.
i mean by social pressure. In any event, remember what I already said, the next 100 years of black hardship would have never happened if the war did not occur. Slavery would have ended and you would have found that people would have been far more willing to give blacks equal rights across the board in a much faster time frame. Yes, the first step would have been slightly longer, but the following steps would have been much, much shorter. The fact is history shows that war to solve slavery is the least efficient way towards the end goal of equal rights.
I firmly believe Abraham Lincoln was one of the great men of history. Through his actions the Union was preserved, slavery was cast down, the notion of representative democracy defended the world over, the path to American power made manifest, and the importance of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the idea of America over fanatical literalism made triumphant.
This is the most transparent form of Confederate apologism I think I've ever run across. It is an almost verbatum argument that post-war Confederates like Yancy tried to use and many rallied to. Blacks weren't really ready for freedom, and their slavery wasn't all that intolerable. Instead by unleashing them on the South you created even greater racial disharmony. Etc, etc. This perspective is an attempt to pretend that deep sighted White racism in the South didn't really exist until the post-war era and that progress was being made (it wasn't) and implicitly argues that slavery wasn't all that bad. Because the only way you can morally accept your own answer is by denying the moral catastrophe that was slavery.
Moreover the REAL way to ensure minority rights in the South post-war would have been to follow the plans that Thaddeus Stevens and others had in mind which was a much longer military presence, the enforced adherence to the Constitution, and the protection of black voters and white sympathizers. Great progress was made from 1865 to the 1870's and was sacrificed with the withdrawal of US troops and the uncaring attentions of a weak Congress.
Pure speculation on your part. How does a person who's all about "personal liberty" become an apologist for slavery? Slavery is the exact opposite of personal liberty.
He consistently maintained a belief in ending slavery.
Pure speculation on your part. How does a person who's all about "personal liberty" become an apologist for slavery? Slavery is the exact opposite of personal liberty.
Progress was being made and all you must do is look at the trends of slave owners. I don't deny that slavery is a violation of rights, but I would rather people get there rights protected as soon as possible with the least amount of deaths in the process.
Show me where that worked anywhere in the world and at a faster pace than what I'm actually saying should of been done towards it and what was more successful than how we actually did it.
A most excellent observation. Over the last dozen years or so on websites just like this one it is almost always the people who bang the drum of libertarianism the loudest proclaiming LIBERTY and FREEDOM who are the biggest apologists and defenders of the South and its way of life.
That is easy to explain because it didn't happen.
Hordes of Northern soldiers did not inflict countless massacres and rapine across the South, this is part and parcel with the Southern 'Lost Cause' mythology. Property destruction and confiscation certainly occurred on a wide scale in certain theaters, but it was common on both sides for different reasons. Southern raiders burned and destroyed scores if not hundreds of towns throughout Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, etc in an effort to gather supplies and tie down Union garrisons. In Sherman's 'March to the Sea' the campaign of destruction was an effort to break the back of Southern resistance and to increase the mobility of the Union column by severing its need for supply or communications.
A most excellent observation. Over the last dozen years or so on websites just like this one it is almost always the people who bang the drum of libertarianism the loudest proclaiming LIBERTY and FREEDOM who are the biggest apologists and defenders of the South and its way of life.
Because they have a fetishistic admiration for ante-bellum notions of states rights, and have managed to graft their current complaints against the Federal government onto the person of Abraham Lincoln and the US government of 1861.
And for bringing back white only business.
Oh please, they came in from one side and came out the other with everything behind them dead/raped and burned to the ground. Stop lying. Did the other side do it to some degree? Yes, without doubt, and I'm not defending that here. Hell, I'm not even defending the south anywhere in this thread.
Or because their racist.
Or because their racist.
This is the most bald faced kind of apologism. "Slavery wasn't good, but it wasn't worth fighting a war over." Is what your argument really boils down to. It is why most people find it a disgusting argument. As to your second point, you want me to show you where armed strength and legal authority prevented the re-occurrence of rights violations? Those examples are innumerable in the 20th Century alone, surely that isn't what you are asking.
:roll:
Ownership is the exclusive right to use and control a particular thing. Denying people from the use of your property is part of property rights. It's the same for your home, your business, or your body and hell even your labor.
And as long as your property is NOT open to the general public and makes NO use of any taxpayer funding or governmental support - you might have an argument.