• 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?

There is no rights to balance, so that doesn't fly, sorry. They have no right of access towards the property in question and the other individual has the right to control access. Do you think that when we consider rights we should decide which rights to violate and which to not? If you do, then sorry, but that is the wrong approach to take in a free society.



My view is supported by reality itself, so I have little idea what you are talking about. Do you think law is all there is to consider?

Some method of argument you have there.

You make it up as you go along.

You never have to cite where you get this nonsense from.

You pontificate and invent rules which suit you.

You are not debating. You are playing God in your own little fantasy world where none of the other 312 million Americans have to live. That would be fine with me as long as you did not do it here so as to try and screw things up for the rest of us who are indeed grounded in reality.
 
And where in the Constitution does it say that?

It say it right here: "The Constitution of the United States"

The constitution specifies the rules of the compact between the states united under that compact. Are you suggesting that the constitution applies to Canada, England, and Australia?
 
Well, your starting point is a common tactic....Let's start off by demonizing people for their supporting the South's right to succession by relating them to "slavery apologists". I have said many, many times, this is childish. No one is supporting slavery, no one is supporting the South's argument for slavery. You've attempted to infer this upon me, and I'd ask you don't do it again. I merely argue for the right of succession.

Sorry, but according to the Vice President of the Confederacy, slavery was the very basis of what they were doing. If you support the South, you are supporting their ability to own people as property. By buying into their whole "We just wanted to leave in peace" load of crap, you are apologizing for that.

Now what people always fail to address about Ft Sumter is that the CSA didn't just up and open a can of whoopass on them. They gave them more than a reasonable chance to leave. It was Lincoln who kept them there in order to provoke confrontation and give pretext for War.

First of all, there was no CSA. It was a very loose association of "free states." If there was a CSA, they might have won, but Davis couldn't get the states to raise troops and money for the other states. What you fail to address about Ft. Sumter is what right South Carolina had to it after they had already ceded it to the United States.

I never said that peaceful seperation was possible I said that it SHOULD have been. Meaning it is what "ought" to have happen. The Tyrant would have never allowed this, but he SHOULD have.

It could not have been possible. Would the South come back peacefully if asked? No. But you ask the opposite question and then declare Lincoln a "tyrant" because he had the guts to fight a war that needed to be fought.
 
Some method of argument you have there.

You make it up as you go along.

You never have to cite where you get this nonsense from.

You pontificate and invent rules which suit you.

You are not debating. You are playing God in your own little fantasy world where none of the other 312 million Americans have to live. That would be fine with me as long as you did not do it here so as to try and screw things up for the rest of us who are indeed grounded in reality.


312 million other people can not tell someone in a free society they are not allowed to practice their rights because they happen to need to use their property. The very fact that it happened in this country is a problem and should be treated as one no matter what the reasons of property owner are. No one has a right to use other peoples property, and no, I did not make that up. It has been general rule of property since the beginning of time. Collectively owned and private property are governed by this same rule.
 
Last edited:
312 million other people can not tell someone in a free society they are not allowed to practice their rights because they happen to need to use their property. The very fact that it happened in this country is a problem and should be treated as one no matter what the reasons of property owner are. No one has a right to use other peoples property, and no, I did not make that up. It has been general rule of property since the beginning of time. Collectively owned and private property are governed by this same rule.

We can and have. Private property only exists at all because we collectively allow it.
 
We can and have. Private property only exists at all because we collectively allow it.

Property has nothing to do with society and if society refused to protect it war would be the only choice. Sorry, but if a government refuses to recognize my property then my only choice is to fight them.

Btw, I said in a "free" society you could not. I never said we didn't in this one here. Do you know what that means? I didn't just use the word "free" for no reason.
 
Last edited:
Property has nothing to do with society and if society refused to protect it war would be the only choice. Sorry, but if a government refuses to recognize my property then my only choice is to fight them.

Btw, I said in a "free" society you could not. I never said we didn't in this one here. Do you know what that means? I didn't just use the word "free" for no reason.

Society decides property rights. If government doesn't recognise you own property than you don't own it.
In stone age days property belonged only to those that could defend it.

Now we give title to facilitate economy. That is the point of title. Just so we no longer fight. We still do,but not nearly as much.

Society decides what the nature of property rights are. The nature of ownership fundamentally still boils down to violence.

You can't open a white only business because we say so. We back that up with fines and or jail.
 
Society decides property rights.

No, it protects property rights.

If government doesn't recognise you own property than you don't own it.

Wrong. I would have trouble defending it against the aggression of others, but I would still own it if the government isn't protecting it.

In stone age days property belonged only to those that could defend it.

No, it belonged to the legitimate owner, but protecting the property was up to the individual to handle alone.

Now we give title to facilitate economy. That is the point of title. Just so we no longer fight. We still do,but not nearly as much.

The title doesn't decide property rights, but makes claims easier to keep track of and property easier to protect.

Society decides what the nature of property rights are. The nature of ownership fundamentally still boils down to violence.

No, it either follows the nature of property rights or it doesn't. It's that simple. I have no idea how you think the act of ownership is violent, but no, its not. Not allowing others to use your property is not a violent act. If that is what you think then I guess every person on the planet is violent everyday because they don't want to be raped or did you forget we have ownership of our bodies? If not allowing people on your property is a violent act(it's not) than saying no to someone that wants to have sex with you is a violent act. Again, the act of ownership is not a violent act. Violating property rights however very much is.

You can't open a white only business because we say so. We back that up with fines and or jail.

Again, you end with what the law says. Is there really any point in talking to you?
 
Last edited:
No, it protects property rights.



Wrong. I would have trouble defending it against the aggression of others, but would own it. if the government isn't protecting



No, it belonged to the legitment owner, but protecting the property was up to the individual to handle alone.



The title doesn't decide property rights, but makes claims easier to keep track of and property easier to protect.



No, it either follows the nature of property rights or it doesn't. It's that simple. I have no idea how you think the act of ownership is violent, but no, its not. Not allowing others to use your property is not a violent act. If that is what you think then I guess every person on the planet is violent everyday because they don't want to be raped or did you forget we have ownership of our bodies? If not allowing people on your property is a violent act(it's not) than saying no to someone that wants to have sex with you is a violent. Again, the act of ownership is not violent. Violating property rights however very much is.



Again, end with what the law says. Is there really any point in talking to you?

Who decided the first owner of property?

Violence decided. Then one day we formed government.
 
Who decided the first owner of property?

The owner.

Violence decided. Then one day we formed government.

No, the first owner did not take it from anyone, so no violence was involved. The day we formed government to protect property was the day we became enlightened.
 
No, it protects property rights.



Wrong. I would have trouble defending it against the aggression of others, but I would still own it if the government isn't protecting it.



No, it belonged to the legitimate owner, but protecting the property was up to the individual to handle alone.



The title doesn't decide property rights, but makes claims easier to keep track of and property easier to protect.



No, it either follows the nature of property rights or it doesn't. It's that simple. I have no idea how you think the act of ownership is violent, but no, its not. Not allowing others to use your property is not a violent act. If that is what you think then I guess every person on the planet is violent everyday because they don't want to be raped or did you forget we have ownership of our bodies? If not allowing people on your property is a violent act(it's not) than saying no to someone that wants to have sex with you is a violent act. Again, the act of ownership is not a violent act. Violating property rights however very much is.



Again, you end with what the law says. Is there really any point in talking to you?

It sounds like you are arguing that the government's legitimate function is to protect property. I can find nothing with which to argue there.
 
312 million other people can not tell someone in a free society they are not allowed to practice their rights because they happen to need to use their property. The very fact that it happened in this country is a problem and should be treated as one no matter what the reasons of property owner are. No one has a right to use other peoples property, and no, I did not make that up. It has been general rule of property since the beginning of time. Collectively owned and private property are governed by this same rule.

They can and do and have been for a very long time now.

Where do I find these rules of property you refer to? Could you link to them or publish them here please?
 
The owner.



No, the first owner did not take it from anyone, so no violence was involved. The day we formed government to protect property was the day we became enlightened.

The owner? No someone somewhere just said this is mine and then uses violence to keep other people away.
 
The owner? No someone somewhere just said this is mine and then uses violence to keep other people away.

The first thing owned was not land or other possessions, but the persons body. Regardless, defending yourself or your property from the aggression of others is necessary to protect your rights from the violations of others.
 
It sounds like you are arguing that the government's legitimate function is to protect property. I can find nothing with which to argue there.

Exactly. :)
 

So is that essentially based upon the libertarian non-aggression principle? It would seem to be a logical conclusion. Does the libertarian support laws designed to protect property and oppose laws that violate property? (And am I correct in understanding that a libertarian regards each person as having a property in his own body?)

Frankly, I find such a position to be commonsensical. If aggression against person and property is wrong, then it's even wrong for the government.
 
Well, your starting point is a common tactic....Let's start off by demonizing people for their supporting the South's right to succession by relating them to "slavery apologists". I have said many, many times, this is childish. No one is supporting slavery, no one is supporting the South's argument for slavery. You've attempted to infer this upon me, and I'd ask you don't do it again. I merely argue for the right of succession.

Now what people always fail to address about Ft Sumter is that the CSA didn't just up and open a can of whoopass on them. They gave them more than a reasonable chance to leave. It was Lincoln who kept them there in order to provoke confrontation and give pretext for War.

I never said that peaceful seperation was possible I said that it SHOULD have been. Meaning it is what "ought" to have happen. The Tyrant would have never allowed this, but he SHOULD have.

They didn't have to leave, that isn't how this works. The thief doesn't get to wait outside the property and tell the owners they've had plenty of time to vacate. It was federal property under the authority of the United States government.
 
They didn't have to leave, that isn't how this works. The thief doesn't get to wait outside the property and tell the owners they've had plenty of time to vacate. It was federal property under the authority of the United States government.

As I said some time ago, it was better to work out a deal for the property instead of simply refusing to talk. In any event, when you are leaving the nation you can not have their military bases in your country. It's just not wise to put yourself at that kind of risk. I'm not saying attacking the fort was justified, but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing either if I was in the position of leaving the nation.

Saying all of this, I find the process in which the federal government came about to owning the forts questionable.
 
Last edited:
Well, your starting point is a common tactic....Let's start off by demonizing people for their supporting the South's right to succession by relating them to "slavery apologists". I have said many, many times, this is childish. No one is supporting slavery, no one is supporting the South's argument for slavery. You've attempted to infer this upon me, and I'd ask you don't do it again. I merely argue for the right of succession.

Now what people always fail to address about Ft Sumter is that the CSA didn't just up and open a can of whoopass on them. They gave them more than a reasonable chance to leave. It was Lincoln who kept them there in order to provoke confrontation and give pretext for War.

I never said that peaceful seperation was possible I said that it SHOULD have been. Meaning it is what "ought" to have happen. The Tyrant would have never allowed this, but he SHOULD have.

No. Most people just don't care if the South was able to construct a defensible legal argument for secession. What they care about, and rightly so, is that the Confederacy was an aristocratic slave power that deserved to be extinguished. That the deep wound it would have inflicted on the United States, our rise to power, and the notion of democratic rule in general would have been grievous.

This is why people who defend the South's right to secede and believe it would have been a better outcome are always vilified as slavery apologists, and always will be. Because they are more fanatically interested in the legalisms in question than the practical realities of slavery and the impact secession would have had on the country and for millions held in bondage.

The CSA deserved to die, and most of us are glad it was crushed.
 
As I said some time ago, it was better to work out a deal for the property instead of simply refusing to talk. In any event, when you are leaving the nation you can not have their miltary bases in your country. It's just not wise to put yourself at that kind of risk. I'm not saying attacking the fort was justified, but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing either if I was in the position of leaving the nation.

I don't really care either way. Retrospectively it was a good thing that they attacked Fort Sumter as it galvanized the morale and might of the Union.
 
I don't really care either way. Retrospectively it was a good thing that they attacked Fort Sumter as it galvanized the morale and might of the Union.

If I recall that was part of the reason Lincoln refused to leave when advised to do so by his own advisors. ;)
 
If I recall that was part of the reason Lincoln refused to leave when advised to do so by his own advisors. ;)

It was something that was obviously considered. The bigger issue was that the Federal Government could not legitimize the rebellion by willingly abandoning federal property, nor could they give in to pressures to avoid a resupply. The Fort had to be maintained in the face of rebel pressure for a variety of political and symbolic reasons, likewise the rebels were subject to mob and radical planter pressure to strike somewhere. Lincoln hoped that no matter what would happen the South would strike first.
 
It was something that was obviously considered. The bigger issue was that the Federal Government could not legitimize the rebellion by willingly abandoning federal property, nor could they give in to pressures to avoid a resupply. The Fort had to be maintained in the face of rebel pressure for a variety of political and symbolic reasons, likewise the rebels were subject to mob and radical planter pressure to strike somewhere. Lincoln hoped that no matter what would happen the South would strike first.

Actually he needed them to strike first and he knew that if he ordered the personal to stay where they were the south would attack the base and this would give him a reason and justification to declare war.
 
Actually he needed them to strike first and he knew that if he ordered the personal to stay where they were the south would attack the base and this would give him a reason and justification to declare war.

There were multiple reasons, we have fairly minute diary entries on those cabinet meetings as well as letters and retrospectives.
 
Back
Top Bottom