• 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?

MadLib said:
It's not ex post facto since it's not a new law.
Click to expand...

There is no law, you keep speaking of law, show me the law. This was sophistry .
 
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...

False equivalency. "Liberating Arabs" is a bunch of weasel words. No meaning. The emancipation of slaves was pretty clear-cut, and authority that Lincoln had via war powers.

And don't forget his support for the Thirteenth Amendment.

Yeah. He never really supported abolitionism. Say that to any historian and see how many back you up on that.
 
MadLib said:
By definition the person who attacks first is the aggressor.
Click to expand...

The tyrant's troops occupied foreign land. Not leaving when told was provocation, which is agression by another name.
 
MadLib said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you really want an answer to that?

I didn't say it was the same I said it was a starting point towards. It doesn't matter what can be extended the CSA had control over their territory.
 
ChezC3 said:
The tyrant's troops occupied foreign land. Not leaving when told was provocation, which is agression by another name.
Click to expand...

Fort Sumter was federal land, not state land. Assuming that the Confederacy had a legal right to one iota of territory, they still had no claim over Ft. Sumter.
 
MadLib said:
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.
Click to expand...


No, the States couldn't they where under military tribunals, Reconstruction, etc, etc. The fact that the tyrant attacked and became victor over the Southern States signifies that they didn't have a right to self determination and precendence had been set for any others who'd like to follow suit, thereby denying generations to come from having that right.
 
MadLib said:
Fort Sumter was federal land, not state land. Assuming that the Confederacy had a legal right to one iota of territory, they still had no claim over Ft. Sumter.
Click to expand...


Again, so says the Tyrant
 
ChezC3 said:
Do you really want an answer to that?
Click to expand...
Sure. Lincoln wasn't dumb.

I didn't say it was the same I said it was a starting point towards. It doesn't matter what can be extended the CSA had control over their territory.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that belligerency is not the same as actual recognition. Therefore they had no legal territorial rights on both Constitutional counts and diplomatic counts.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Moreover we proposed this and slave holders and legislatures adamantly refused.
 
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...

England fought us during the Civil War? This is new :lol:

Wiki said:
However, public opinion against slavery created a political liability for European politicians, especially in Britain (who had herself abolished slavery in her own colonies in 1834).[196]

...

The Emancipation Proclamation over time would reinforce the political liability of supporting the Confederacy.
Click to expand...
 
Gipper said:
They supplied the North.
Click to expand...

Great Britain is most known for its surrupteous supply of the Confederacy and its conferral of belligerent status to the South. The funneling of guns, ships, and basic goods to circumvent the blockade soured US-British relations for years afterward and were a central part of the war effort.
 
Gipper said:
They supplied the North.
Click to expand...

You said "England fought us." Referring to the South, then. I thought you were referring to the USA.

The Brits traded with everybody. They tried to supply the South but the North blockaded them. They even sold a few warships to the CSA. Their officials favored the South, actually, to end the United States' hegemony in the Americas, but because of the EP, Lincoln's threats, and the blockade this became unfeasible.
 
haymarket said:
You certainly are not helping in that regard as you seem loathe to explain where you are getting these ideas you cite.
Click to expand...

I already explained it. The problem is you got caught up in term usage and completely shut down.
 
MadLib said:
Sure. Lincoln wasn't dumb.



I was pointing out that belligerency is not the same as actual recognition. Therefore they had no legal territorial rights on both Constitutional counts and diplomatic counts.
Click to expand...

Your missing the point that the CSA denounced the "legality" of what you claim and instituted its own government, created its own legality. That was the entire purpose. The secession was tearing Union's authority away and implimenting its own authority. Any argument of legality is futile if the particpants don't recognize the authority. Also, many nations still traded and did business with the CSA. That there is a form of recognition.
 
MadLib said:
Was Fort Sumter federal or state territory? If so, why did it have a federal fort smack in the middle of it?
Click to expand...


Your argument would then lay all territory the CSA claimed as "federal". You then would fail to regonize the South's entire premise.
 
ChezC3 said:
Your missing the point that the CSA denounced the "legality" of what you claim and instituted its own government, created its own legality. That was the entire purpose. The secession was tearing Union's authority away and implimenting its own authority. Any argument of legality is futile if the particpants don't recognize the authority. Also, many nations still traded and did business with the CSA. That there is a form of recognition.
Click to expand...

That's an absurd position to take. That's like saying because a serial killer doesn't recognize state murder laws as legal then he did nothing wrong.
 
MadLib said:
You're right. The Confederates should never have attacked the Union after they split off.
Click to expand...

The Yanks should have left when they were told to...
 
ChezC3 said:
Your argument would then lay all territory the CSA claimed as "federal". You then would fail to regonize the South's entire premise.
Click to expand...

I don't actually think that. Most of the territory belonged to States of the Union, but not to any other government. The fort was actually directly federal property. A better comparison would be American Samoa rather than any state-held territory.
 
ChezC3 said:
The Yanks should have left when they were told to...
Click to expand...

If I was President and a fort in my possession was attacked, and the soldiers inside whose lives I had a duty to protect, I'd certainly retaliate with a punitive expedition at the very least, secession aside. The Confederates really had some gall.
 
MadLib said:
That's an absurd position to take. That's like saying because a serial killer doesn't recognize state murder laws as legal then he did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

No, that's an absurd analogy. This wasn't an individual flouting the law, (a law which you've still failed to produce, and can't because there was none) This is about Sovereign States of a Union no longer recognizing the Federal authority it allowed itself to be subject to. The authority, again, is given and had from the consent of the governed. When elected representives of any given state have their populations approval to disjoin, than that consent is revoked and any "legality" is null and void.
 
MadLib said:
If I was President and a fort in my possession was attacked, and the soldiers inside whose lives I had a duty to protect, I'd certainly retaliate with a punitive expedition at the very least, secession aside. The Confederates really had some gall.
Click to expand...

Right, it was all "federal" land. Eminent Domain was around long before the War of Aggression. To explain, eminant domain by its very premise denies anyone true property rights. The best any of us can hope for is exclusive rights of use. So long as the Federal government (or any other) doesn't want it.
 
well I like that Lincoln waged a war that ultimately ended slavery.... that sort of tyranny should be ended by any means necessary.

I dislike that he waged a war to keep the union whole.... that sort of tyranny should not be allowed to exist.

had he went to war and ended slavery, but allowed the South to enjoy their self determination by allowing the CSA to exist and continue, I would be more pleased with him.

he is both a slayer of tyranny, and a tyrant....there's something for everyone to like about him, and dislike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom