• 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:
I'm asking you where it gave rise to people being seen as equal and created a general acceptance of those people. Go ahead and find an example of that. Forcing people to behave in the way you want and them doing so on their own free will are not equal.
Click to expand...

The problem was that there was no guarantee that slavery would soon end. It was dying down previously, but the invention of the cotton gin led to its rise. And there is no guarantee that a more peaceful emancipation would have led to faster equality. Look at Jews in Europe at around the same time, they were emancipated from the ghetto, given some rights, had those rights taken away, wash, rinse, repeat until the Holocaust.
 
Henrin said:
Actually only this quote harms me:



The rest where either made to the public or after I was referring when he was politically motivated towards those ends.
Click to expand...

Why does that bother you? It's exactly what you are suggesting 170 years later.
 
ChezC3 said:
He freed slaves while enslaving a nation.
Click to expand...

The South was not enslaved in any way, shape, or form. What happened in the Philippines was far closer to enslavement than the Civil War, considering that the South wasn't simply made a territory but received the rights of states again.
 
ChezC3 said:
Again you change context to suit your needs...
Click to expand...

Like you changing the context of the emancipation of slaves to them being illegally emancipated by a foreign power? The CSA was not a legal government because it was not recognized by any nation and because it existed contrary to the laws of its rightful government.
 
MadLib said:
The South was not enslaved in any way, shape, or form. What happened in the Philippines was far closer to enslavement than the Civil War, considering that the South wasn't simply made a territory but received the rights of states again.
Click to expand...

Certainly it was, as was the US as a whole from then on.
 
MadLib said:
Like you changing the context of the emancipation of slaves to them being illegally emancipated by a foreign power? The CSA was not a legal government because it was not recognized by any nation and because it existed contrary to the laws of its rightful government.
Click to expand...

Never did change the context, but nice try. Of course the CSA was a legal government. It had beligerent status with governments though and the Tyrant all but explicitly stated he'd go to war with any country that did recognize them. Again aggression, the actions of a despot if ever there was one.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...

Regardless, the "property" which was "owned" that the South seceded to protect was other people.

Try as they will to wiggle out of it, Confederate apologists miss that point entirely. So they'll say "Well, slavery was bad, but...the North was trampling on the rights of the South." Trampling on their "right" to own other people as property.
 
MadLib said:
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.
Click to expand...

The CSA was defending its territory from interlopers.

Much like the Revolutionaries to the loyalists 90 years before, eh?

The entire argument is about the Tyrant's cause for the War of Aggression was because of secession, not slavery. You seem to have just implicitly agreed, thank you.
 
Last edited:
I'm not racist BUT I can't stand Lincoln. Stomped on the constitution (figuratively) and waged a war on non combatants using dictatorial tactics, and his armies committed atrocities everywhere. he is my least favorite president along with Obama. The problem is, no one believes me because one hundred ish years of brainwashing has done its job.
 
Calvincoolidge said:
I'm not racist BUT I can't stand Lincoln. Stomped on the constitution (figuratively) and waged a war on non combatants using dictatorial tactics, and his armies committed atrocities everywhere. he is my least favorite president along with Obama. The problem is, no one believes me because one hundred ish years of brainwashing has done its job.
Click to expand...


We should be thankful that he preserved the Union. Without him, the United States as we know it today would not exist.
 
Just to annoy the Confederate Apologists I'm going to say Lincoln was right.
 
rocket88 said:
We should be thankful that he preserved the Union. Without him, the United States as we know it today would not exist.
Click to expand...

Oh. You mean the USA with no knock warrants, police state tactics, and constitutional overreaches? The one that bosses the states around when they constitutionally aren't allowed to?


***Disclaimer: I love the USA and the constitution, just disagree with our (most of them) ridiculous leaders***
 
Calvincoolidge said:
Oh. You mean the USA with no knock warrants, police state tactics, and constitutional overreaches? The one that bosses the states around when they constitutionally aren't allowed to?


***Disclaimer: I love the USA and the constitution, just disagree with our (most of them) ridiculous leaders***
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Still the best place to live.
 
But Lincoln made it worse.. The CSA and the USA could co exist in alternate history if Lincoln didn't pursue the war
 
Calvincoolidge said:
But Lincoln made it worse.. The CSA and the USA could co exist in alternate history if Lincoln didn't pursue the war
Click to expand...

The CSA was created because the south did not vote for Lincoln, he was not even on the ballot in some states, and when Lincoln won they decied to leave because of it.
 
ChezC3 said:
What crime is that exactly?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChezC3 said:
Certainly it was, as was the US as a whole from then on.
Click to expand...

Slavery implies a loss of rights. What rights did any state or person in the Union lose because of the Civil War?
 
ChezC3 said:
The CSA was defending its territory from interlopers.

Much like the Revolutionaries to the loyalists 90 years before, eh?

The entire argument is about the Tyrant's cause for the War of Aggression was because of secession, not slavery. You seem to have just implicitly agreed, thank you.
Click to expand...

Fort Sumter was federal territory. Therefore the CSA was the aggressor.
 
ChezC3 said:
Never did change the context, but nice try. Of course the CSA was a legal government. It had beligerent status with governments though and the Tyrant all but explicitly stated he'd go to war with any country that did recognize them. Again aggression, the actions of a despot if ever there was one.
Click to expand...

A belligerent status is not the same as recognition. Lincoln was obviously bluffing.
 
haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

One of the reasons slavery is wrong is in fact that in order to control another being you must assume control over property owned by another person and in the process inflict violence.
 
Last edited:
AmericanWoman76 said:
more than 2 million people were killed in the Civil War. many sources estimate a much smaller number, the figure of more than 2 million was determined by obtaining the names and other identity information of everyone killed, and counting them, it was not an estimate. The southerners were often drafted, and desertion was met with the death penalty. the northerners chose to accept the risk of death, believing that the cause was worth more than their lives. No one was drafted in the north, the northern soldiers all enlisted. Lincoln granted a blanket pardon to all deserters, any soldier from the north could leave at any time if they came to the conclusion that the cause wasn't worth their life, without penalty, any southerner was pardoned for desertion too, too, if they had fled to the north successfully. This blanket pardon was a totally unprecedented act that no President nor Prince had ever done in any war before or since, and totally worthy of inclusion in the new movie "Lincoln", although I doubt that the fictionalized movie "Lincoln" mentioned it at all.
Click to expand...


Not only did congress pass The Draft Act in 1863 but there was a rebellion against the draft as well.....



"....The Militia Act of 1862 gave the President authority to draft 300,000 militiamen for up to nine months. It was to be a state run affair, with each county to be involved in the selection. However, the threat of conscription was for the time being enough to keep enlistments at an adequate level.

The Draft Act of 1863 was the first instance of compulsory service in the federal military services. All male citizens, as well as aliens who had declared their intention of becoming citizens, between 20 and 45 were at risk of being drafted. No married man could be drafted until all the unmarried had been taken....read..."
The Draft in the Civil War



"....The New York City draft riots (July 13 to July 16, 1863; known at the time as Draft Week[2]) were violent disturbances in New York City that were the culmination of working-class discontent with new laws passed by Congress that year to draft men to fight in the ongoing American Civil War. The riots were the largest civil insurrection in American history.[3]....read...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
 
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...

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
 
Where I went to school, President Lincoln was shown to be a nasty person towards my people. I found these on another site:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
Click to expand...

“See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. “Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated.” [bold face mine]

— Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371.
Click to expand...

He wanted my people to be sent back to Africa. President Lincoln was a racist.
 
Woah! I never heard all that. And yeah Lincoln was definitely a racist if he believed that. The civil war was more about White peoples dispute than it was freeing blacks from slavery like they make it out to be. Blacks were just used in the civil war as pawns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom