The Instigator
Farooq
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

It Is Hypocritical To Believe Lincoln Was Right In Using Violence Against Rebels And George Wasn't

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Farooq
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,643 times Debate No: 5421
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

Farooq

Pro

Let us look at this logically,

Both President Abraham Lincoln and King George III are known well in history books, but under different lights. Since most of their legacy rests on American shores, the popular history written about them as an American bias. This is the only reason why Lincoln is praised and George's name is despised. Let us look at this logically though and see into the controversy.

On the negative side both leaders spat into the face of democracy by refusing to allow separatist regions to go about their crafted polices (i.e. separate). Since both Lincoln and George claimed to respect the democratic establishment (Parliament or Congress) this mars their record of principled thought greatly.

This is of course, what the people of the time acknowledged as democracy. If one was to count the votes of each and every citizen, neither region would have voted to separate, but Negroes were not favoured by Hancock or Davies. Both sought to rectify this problem by declaring all slaves in the separatist regions free, one failed. But both tried.

In addition to this positive, they events they caused (i.e. pressing a war that could possibly be averted, had they yielded) created massive destruction to infrastructure and spillage of many litres of blood. Surely a more diplomatic approach could have been made?

There for it is logical to assume that both these two men were great, or to assume the opposite and spit on their names. But to say one was something, and the other the opposite is utter bare hypocrisy.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"

On the negative side both leaders spat into the face of democracy by refusing to allow separatist regions to go about their crafted polices (i.e. separate)."

Democracy is not a good thing as such. Whether ignoring the will of the majority of a region is good or bad depends on what the will of the majority of that region actually is- The will of the majority of the Colonies, as concerns what the rebels were trying to enact and as concerns what George opposed, was the will to put a stop to various taxes. "Tax" is another word for "Robbery," therefore, stopping a tax is a good thing. The will of the majority of the Confederate region, as concerns what Lincoln opposed and ended up stopping, was to continue holding large numbers of slaves for agriculture. On the question of taxes the first time around, the rebels were justified. On the question of slaves the second, it was Lincoln, not the rebels, who was justified. Granted, the first rebels had slaves too- but slavery was not in any sense an issue in that war, the king supported it too (as evidenced by his order specifically not to abolish it http://www.sonofthesouth.net....)

"Since both Lincoln and George claimed to respect the democratic establishment (Parliament or Congress) this mars their record of principled thought greatly.
"
It is of no fundamental importance to us whether Lincoln or George were "Principled" folk. The point is the extent to which principles exist that justify Lincoln's violence against the rebels, and to which principles exist that justify George's against a different set of rebels.

As for the war being one that "Could have been averted..." So? It would not have been good to avert it, to go after a "Diplomatic solution" (which would not have ended slavery). It would have saved guillty lives. This is not a positive.
Debate Round No. 1
Farooq

Pro

As for your for allegations regarding the causes of war let me utterly refute you. Neither rebellion, American or Confederate, was based solely on one purpose. Although taxation without representation (taxation in itself was not perceived as unjust by the vast majority of Colonists) was regarded as a primary cause in the war's outbreak but it was not the only one. Frustraton with London's decision to HONOUR treaty agreements with Amerindian tribes west of the Appalachians and forbid unlawful settlement, disgust with the growing abolish movement in the Home Island (speeded by George's proclamation of emancipation for all rebels' slaves) , and various other small things. These were not at all 100% noble and just purposes, certainly not worth causing so much bloodshed over. The history books cast the Colonists as impoverished and oppressed when in reality they had the world's highest living standards and endowed with some of the most liberal laws in the entire world.

As for the Confederate revolt, yes fear of the abolish movement played a part in exemplifying the cultural disunity, but it was not on the mind of many Union leaders. Few had any positive thoughts on Negroes, and most were motivated primarily by an obsession with national unity. Even if slavery was abolished, it was merely replaced with an apartheid system.

Guilty lives? Is it guilty to standup for your homeland (viewed as many as their state, and many as their country) and fight as a patriot? Most Southern soldiers were not slave-owners, too lowly for that lofty postion. Even if it means disregarding noble things? Is so than surely both these leaders weren't justified, and total scum for causing such bloodshed. But not only 1 of them.
If you believe otherwise, than both were principled patriots themselves who put preserving their country and the will of their people (the majority of Confederates and inhabitants of the 13 Colonies were against rebellion). Choose a postion, but don't be a hypocrit
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"As for your for allegations regarding the causes of war let me utterly refute you. Neither rebellion, American or Confederate, was based solely on one purpose."
I have no allegations concerning the causes of the war. Only concerning the consequences of war.

"Although taxation without representation (taxation in itself was not perceived as unjust by the vast majority of Colonists) "
A mark of their philosophical inconsistency, nevertheless, as a consequence of the war taxes were reduced to have a lesser degree of influence upon daily life. Theft took a setback when they won. This fact is sufficient to justify the war, barring other differences in the opposite direction.

"Frustraton with London's decision to HONOUR treaty agreements with Amerindian tribes west of the Appalachians and forbid unlawful settlement,"

London's decision to honor LONDON'S treaty agreements. And force them upon the colonists, who did not agree to it- despite the fact that many of the lands contained in the treaties were in fact uninhabited (The tribes were quite spread out), and thus not legitimate things to keep people out of.

"disgust with the growing abolish movement in the Home Island (speeded by George's proclamation of emancipation for all rebels' slaves)"
And yet, as I pointed out, when there was a political climate in which emancipating non-rebel's slaves would have been possible, George specifically refused. It was not George's influence which caused the emancipation of slaves in England, but other political factions- political factions which would not have spread to America were it to remain under English power. Until the colonists were themselves free, the odds of them granting freedom to their own slaves were slim to none. It is important to note that the first abolitionist society in the Colonies popped up in 1776. It was a product of the Revolution (see the book "Radicalism and the American Revolution."

Out of characters, continued in comments.
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Sorry, it's midnight here in London and I've been out drinking after work - I meant "the original English word for the fourth season...."
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
That's true Ragnar. it can be seen in the language. For example, the original English word ford the fourth season was "fall", which is still preserved in American English, whereas (for some unknown reason) we now use the word "autumn".
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"the general consensus is that we are much closer culturally to America than we are to any of our European neighbours – a kind of 51st state if you like!"

As "Radicalism and the American Revolution" put it, we revolted because we were even more British than the British were :D.
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
That's funny because in my experience with my fellow Americans, when one hears "Europe" one automatically thinks of a man having tea and talking about rugby with a thick English accent. :-)
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Perhaps the comparison between the American colonists and the Islamic fundamentalists was a bit of an exaggeration…sorry. Most Brits hold America and American people in the very highest regard – the general consensus is that we are much closer culturally to America than we are to any of our European neighbours – a kind of 51st state if you like!

Indeed, whereas my friends in family in the States describe me as European (which I am, technically speaking) this sounds very strange to my British ears. For us, a European is someone who comes from continental Europe. I remember the headlines in a newspaper before the Channel tunnel was built which read "Storms in English Channel cut Europe off from Britain". The implication of this was 1) Britain is not part of Europe and 2) the Europeans had been cut off from the civilised world!

As well as British and European history, kids in UK schools also have to learn about all our former imperial possessions such as Australia, NZ, HKG, the Caribbean, India, Africa and so on and so forth, so there's no time to go into too much depth about the Americas!

Most of what I know comes from Bill Bryson's excellent travelogues from America – he is an American living in Britain and therefore assumes the readers of the British editions have only basic knowledge of American history. They are very funnny and informative - must reads!
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Radical muslims,.. and colonial radicals,... Religious motives VS. Political motives.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
JBlake,...

"I do not believe we could have won the war without France and the Navy,... " I was not wrong,... I conceded this fact.

The revolution was a result of a growing body of discouraged colonists that were sick of being heavily taxed without representation. The colonists felt they had enough commodities to provide an excellent economic structure and were sick of giving it all away to the British empire without Colonial representatives in govt. This began boycotts, rebel groups, organization of colonial congress, a few violent altercations, and whallah,.. a war.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
The Massachusetts colonists might have been comparable to the Middle East insurgents...

Not the rest though...

I submit as evidence the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
I'm really liking this debate. brian_eggleston, I never would've compared the rebel colonists to the insurgents of the Middle-East. Aren't their motivations and methods totally different from each other? I guess you guys see General Washington as a colonial Osama Bin Laden!
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I'm afraid you are wrong, bthr004. Without France's involvement independence would be impossible. They not only helped in our own hemisphere with troops, training, and (especially) a navy), but they also concentrated Britain's power on the other side of the Atlantic. Ultimately, the cost of the war and the new front that France opened in Europe led to their pulling out of America. You would be hard pressed to find a historian who does not emphasize France's hand in our own independence.

Brian is also correct in pointing out that it was a vested interest that was a huge contributing factor as to why we declared independence in the first place. The degree of that is up for debate, since none actually came out and said 'Let's overthrow the British so that I can take power.'

Brian, I'd very much like to hear how are bretheren across the pond view American History if you ever have the time.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 8 years ago
DylanAsdale
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32