Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lincoln was Oppressive to the North

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:18:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Suspension of Habeas Corpus in the Union

On July 2, 1861 President Lincoln authorized General Winfield Scott to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, "between the city of New York and the city of Washington" by executive order.
This put New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware under martial law.
Maryland and Delaware were the only northern states to vote Southern Democrat, and the only non-border states in the north to vote against Lincoln.

On October 14, 1861 the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was "extended so far as Bangor, in Maine" by another Executive order, thereby suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus in New England.
Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Road Island was now placed under Martial Law, in addition to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware.
That's 11 States, and 125 electoral votes, under Military Rule.

After Replacing General Scott with General H.W Halleck on November 1st 1861, he than ordered General Halleck to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Border state of Missouri, on December 2, 1861.
Missouri was the only state to vote Northern Democrat in 1860.
This made a total of 12 States, and 134 electoral votes, under Military Rule.

On Sept. 24, 1862 Lincoln extended the Suspension of Habeas Corpus throughout the entire Union, through Proclamation 94, under which he specifically stated, "all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial or military commissions"

Now every state in the union, was under Military Rule.

Political Prisoners, and Military possession of industries

On February 14, 1862, Lincoln signed an executive order, titled "Relating to Political Prisoners", in which he gave the military the power to arrest people, on the basis of political ideals.

Under this order thousands were arrested, without habeus corpus, due to their political opposition.

On February 25, 1862, Lincoln signed an executive order taking Military control of Telegraph lines. With this order, all forms of communication (Mail, and telegraph) now was controlled by the Lincoln administration.

On May 25, 1862, Lincoln signed an executive order, taking Military control of the Railways. With this executive order, transportation was not under Lincoln's thumb as well.

On May 18, 1864, Lincoln signed another executive order, titled "Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors"
In which he had News Paper Reporters and Editors, who were reporting on the war, arrested for treason, and he took military control of their presses, in order to print war propaganda.

Drafting Immigrants

on June 30, 1862, Lincoln ordered the Governors of several states to draft 150,000 men into the Militia.
In 1864 he would order two more drafts, one for 500,000 men, and another for 200,000 men.

That's a total of 850,000 draftees.

To put this in retrospect, during Vietnam only 1.2% of the population was drafted, and draft dodgers were pardoned. During the Civil war 3.8% of the population was drafted, and draft dodgers were hung.

Lincoln allowed for the Rich to pay a fee, to get their family out of the draft, and draft someone else in their place. This fee helped fund the war.

Many of the draftees were immigrants, who came to this country to find a better life; instead they were forced to take up arms in a civil war.

The Draft was unnecessary, as even without it we would have maintained an numerical advantage
The Confederate Army had 1,064,000 men. The Union Army had 2,100,000 men, 120,000 of which was Southern Unionists. If you eliminate the 850,000 who was drafted, the union still outnumber the confederates by 186,000 men.
The Union suffered 140,414 casualties, while the south suffered only 72,524 casualties. So the Union suffered 67,890 more casualties than the south.A 186,000 man advantage is more than twice the 67,890 Casualty disadvantage. The North would have still won the war, with a great advantage in troops.

North was oppressed due to a war of Aggression

In 1861 Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, "We seek no conquest. All we ask is to be left alone."
Contrary to popular belief the Civil War was not over slavery, it was over secession. Lincoln was not concerned about slavery, his main focus was Nationalism, and contrary to the Confederates who believed in States Rights, Lincoln believed that what is good for the Nation trumps everything else, including the rights of the people.

In 1861 3 weeks after Confederate General Robert E. Lee was promoted to a Colonel in the U.S. Army, President Lincoln offered him a Senior Command with the rank of Major General, Lee replied, "If Virginia stands by the old Union, so will I. But if she secedes,... then I will follow my native state with my sword and, if need be, with my life."

The south was not the only ones wishing to secede.

The Mayor of New York City, Fernando Wood, made an address to the City Council in 1861, recommending that, with the Southern states seceding from the United States, New York City should become an independent city-state. He stated, "When disunion has become a fixed and certain act, why may not New York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master.... Amid the gloom which the present and prospective condition of things must cast over the country, New York, as a free city, may shed only light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed confederacy. "

South had good reason to secede

Not a single Southern state voted for Lincoln, Some of the Northern States also did not vote for Lincoln.

The reason Lincoln won, was due to an advantage in the electoral college. New York had 35 electors Pennsylvania had 27 electors; that's 62 electors, in only 2 New England states, while the south only had 61 electors in the 9 states voting southern democrat.

combine that with the 12 electors in Tennessee, and 10 electors in East Virginia (Virginia had 15 electors, and west Virginia had 5 in 1864), and the CSA had only 82 electors.

Take the 62 electors of Pennsylvania and York, and add the 23 from Ohio, and you gt 85 electors for the North.

In other words, Lincoln only needed 3 states to make the Southern vote irrelevant.

The South and the North were also separated culturally

The North was Industrial
The South was Agricultural
The North's economy was dependent on industrialization
The South's economy was dependent on slave labor
The North was mostly urban
The South was mostly rural
The North was Protestant
The South was Baptist
The North was Nationalist
The South was Conservative
The North benefited from protective tariffs
The South was hurt by protective tariffs
The North wanted more Federal powers
The South wanted to protect States' rights
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:09:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So you want all black people to be slaves?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:12:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I question whether it was necessary to impose martial law,...but if martial law was the only way to abolish slavery, then by our supreme moral duty it was wholly justified.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:51:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
He may have overreacted to the initial outbreak of the war but come on he did a great job of handling the crisis
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:01:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There was really no point in posting this but OK.

As the old saying goes: All is fair in love and war.

The South being a belligerent nation actually did not have to be recognized.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:08:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 2:12:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
I question whether it was necessary to impose martial law,...but if martial law was the only way to abolish slavery, then by our supreme moral duty it was wholly justified.

No other country in the western hemisphere abolished slavery through war. If we followed the trend of the rest of the world, slaves would have escaped to the North, and because of the secession, the Fugitive Slave laws would no longer apply. The costs of keeping slaves enslaved would skyrocket, and over time, as many pro-secession abolitionists predicted, the entire system would have to collapse. Instead, we took the bloody route.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:10:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 2:09:08 PM, Reasoning wrote:
So you want all black people to be slaves?

that's definitely what I heard.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:11:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you don't convert to marial law during civil unrest, you're risking a sociological collapse, because people would disperse into to many different ideological camps and we would no longer be a cohesive society, dually collapsing our economy and leaving us all of the way wide open to be attacked by other nations.

For example, "Southern Democrats."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:15:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:08:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/12/2012 2:12:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
I question whether it was necessary to impose martial law,...but if martial law was the only way to abolish slavery, then by our supreme moral duty it was wholly justified.

No other country in the western hemisphere abolished slavery through war. If we followed the trend of the rest of the world, slaves would have escaped to the North, and because of the secession, the Fugitive Slave laws would no longer apply. The costs of keeping slaves enslaved would skyrocket, and over time, as many pro-secession abolitionists predicted, the entire system would have to collapse. Instead, we took the bloody route.

But don't forget that the war was not fought for slavery, but for secession. Slavery could have been defeated legislatively, but they were too timid considering the political consequences of that move. Secession was a mandate to eliminate slavery, so had the South not attempted to destroy the Union and steal a federal fort, we may have eliminated slavery in the less hostile fashion the other western nations did.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:17:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:15:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/12/2012 4:08:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/12/2012 2:12:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
I question whether it was necessary to impose martial law,...but if martial law was the only way to abolish slavery, then by our supreme moral duty it was wholly justified.

No other country in the western hemisphere abolished slavery through war. If we followed the trend of the rest of the world, slaves would have escaped to the North, and because of the secession, the Fugitive Slave laws would no longer apply. The costs of keeping slaves enslaved would skyrocket, and over time, as many pro-secession abolitionists predicted, the entire system would have to collapse. Instead, we took the bloody route.

But don't forget that the war was not fought for slavery, but for secession. Slavery could have been defeated legislatively, but they were too timid considering the political consequences of that move. Secession was a mandate to eliminate slavery, so had the South not attempted to destroy the Union and steal a federal fort, we may have eliminated slavery in the less hostile fashion the other western nations did.

The South was not trying to destroy the Union. The Union and the Confederacy could have both existed independently. The federal fort was on southern land, and the Confederacy offered to buy it from the Union, but they refused. After that point, the Union fort was intruding upon Confederate land and refused to surrender, which led to a skirmish. The Union then overreacted and invaded.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:24:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:17:55 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/12/2012 4:15:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/12/2012 4:08:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/12/2012 2:12:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
I question whether it was necessary to impose martial law,...but if martial law was the only way to abolish slavery, then by our supreme moral duty it was wholly justified.

No other country in the western hemisphere abolished slavery through war. If we followed the trend of the rest of the world, slaves would have escaped to the North, and because of the secession, the Fugitive Slave laws would no longer apply. The costs of keeping slaves enslaved would skyrocket, and over time, as many pro-secession abolitionists predicted, the entire system would have to collapse. Instead, we took the bloody route.

But don't forget that the war was not fought for slavery, but for secession. Slavery could have been defeated legislatively, but they were too timid considering the political consequences of that move. Secession was a mandate to eliminate slavery, so had the South not attempted to destroy the Union and steal a federal fort, we may have eliminated slavery in the less hostile fashion the other western nations did.

The South was not trying to destroy the Union. The Union and the Confederacy could have both existed independently. The federal fort was on southern land, and the Confederacy offered to buy it from the Union, but they refused. After that point, the Union fort was intruding upon Confederate land and refused to surrender, which led to a skirmish. The Union then overreacted and invaded.

hm, would you like to debate the legality of secession (as per 1860, prior to Texas v. White), or the morality of secession?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:31:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 2:09:08 PM, Reasoning wrote:
So you want all black people to be slaves?

Not once did I say that; thanks for the ad hominem attack
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:31:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Total misunderstanding of historic context.

It was deemed that the united states remaining united was of greater importance to the executive than the constitution. At this time in our history it was a reasonable value to hold, considering the perennial threat of the dissolution of the country, and at each flash point the threat increased. It's easy to look back and say, 'hmmm, it seems reasonable that a one should preside over a country splintering off into various entities; why not?' However, any president that allowed such an action would have been considered an absolute failure at his job, and history would have been far less kind to any president to allow the country that he has been entrusted to, to dissolve section by section, state by state, and contention by contention.

The country was still young, and Europe was still not without a certain interest in such a breakdown. In fact Britain was mostly in favor of the south's secession and were it not for Henry Adams (one of John's descendants), Britain very well would have assisted the south. Interesting, the only notable Brit at the time who favored the Union was Karl Marx.

The words that "the constitution is not a suicide pact" is often applied to the Lincoln presidency.

It is so important to understand not just the history, but the context, the way people were thinking and why they were thinking, and when you are applying a contemporary value to a time in history, it's often fairly ignorant when there is particular disparity. There are exceptions of course, when evil is evil, but more often than not there is just a poor understanding of the values of the time.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:24:16 PM, 000ike wrote:

hm, would you like to debate the legality of secession (as per 1860, prior to Texas v. White), or the morality of secession?

Either one. I've debated each before.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:41:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 1:18:29 PM, DanT wrote:
Suspension of Habeas Corpus in the Union

On July 2, 1861 President Lincoln authorized General Winfield Scott to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, "between the city of New York and the city of Washington" by executive order.
This put New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware under martial law.
Maryland and Delaware were the only northern states to vote Southern Democrat, and the only non-border states in the north to vote against Lincoln.

On October 14, 1861 the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was "extended so far as Bangor, in Maine" by another Executive order, thereby suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus in New England.
Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Road Island was now placed under Martial Law, in addition to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware.
That's 11 States, and 125 electoral votes, under Military Rule.

After Replacing General Scott with General H.W Halleck on November 1st 1861, he than ordered General Halleck to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Border state of Missouri, on December 2, 1861.
Missouri was the only state to vote Northern Democrat in 1860.
This made a total of 12 States, and 134 electoral votes, under Military Rule.

On Sept. 24, 1862 Lincoln extended the Suspension of Habeas Corpus throughout the entire Union, through Proclamation 94, under which he specifically stated, "all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial or military commissions"

Now every state in the union, was under Military Rule.

Political Prisoners, and Military possession of industries


On February 14, 1862, Lincoln signed an executive order, titled "Relating to Political Prisoners", in which he gave the military the power to arrest people, on the basis of political ideals.

Under this order thousands were arrested, without habeus corpus, due to their political opposition.

On February 25, 1862, Lincoln signed an executive order taking Military control of Telegraph lines. With this order, all forms of communication (Mail, and telegraph) now was controlled by the Lincoln administration.

On May 25, 1862, Lincoln signed an executive order, taking Military control of the Railways. With this executive order, transportation was not under Lincoln's thumb as well.

On May 18, 1864, Lincoln signed another executive order, titled "Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors"
In which he had News Paper Reporters and Editors, who were reporting on the war, arrested for treason, and he took military control of their presses, in order to print war propaganda.


Drafting Immigrants

on June 30, 1862, Lincoln ordered the Governors of several states to draft 150,000 men into the Militia.
In 1864 he would order two more drafts, one for 500,000 men, and another for 200,000 men.

That's a total of 850,000 draftees.

To put this in retrospect, during Vietnam only 1.2% of the population was drafted, and draft dodgers were pardoned. During the Civil war 3.8% of the population was drafted, and draft dodgers were hung.

Lincoln allowed for the Rich to pay a fee, to get their family out of the draft, and draft someone else in their place. This fee helped fund the war.

Many of the draftees were immigrants, who came to this country to find a better life; instead they were forced to take up arms in a civil war.

The Draft was unnecessary, as even without it we would have maintained an numerical advantage
The Confederate Army had 1,064,000 men. The Union Army had 2,100,000 men, 120,000 of which was Southern Unionists. If you eliminate the 850,000 who was drafted, the union still outnumber the confederates by 186,000 men.
The Union suffered 140,414 casualties, while the south suffered only 72,524 casualties. So the Union suffered 67,890 more casualties than the south.A 186,000 man advantage is more than twice the 67,890 Casualty disadvantage. The North would have still won the war, with a great advantage in troops.

North was oppressed due to a war of Aggression

In 1861 Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, "We seek no conquest. All we ask is to be left alone."
Contrary to popular belief the Civil War was not over slavery, it was over secession. Lincoln was not concerned about slavery, his main focus was Nationalism, and contrary to the Confederates who believed in States Rights, Lincoln believed that what is good for the Nation trumps everything else, including the rights of the people.

In 1861 3 weeks after Confederate General Robert E. Lee was promoted to a Colonel in the U.S. Army, President Lincoln offered him a Senior Command with the rank of Major General, Lee replied, "If Virginia stands by the old Union, so will I. But if she secedes,... then I will follow my native state with my sword and, if need be, with my life."

The south was not the only ones wishing to secede.

The Mayor of New York City, Fernando Wood, made an address to the City Council in 1861, recommending that, with the Southern states seceding from the United States, New York City should become an independent city-state. He stated, "When disunion has become a fixed and certain act, why may not New York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master.... Amid the gloom which the present and prospective condition of things must cast over the country, New York, as a free city, may shed only light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed confederacy. "


South had good reason to secede

Not a single Southern state voted for Lincoln, Some of the Northern States also did not vote for Lincoln.

The reason Lincoln won, was due to an advantage in the electoral college. New York had 35 electors Pennsylvania had 27 electors; that's 62 electors, in only 2 New England states, while the south only had 61 electors in the 9 states voting southern democrat.

combine that with the 12 electors in Tennessee, and 10 electors in East Virginia (Virginia had 15 electors, and west Virginia had 5 in 1864), and the CSA had only 82 electors.

Take the 62 electors of Pennsylvania and York, and add the 23 from Ohio, and you gt 85 electors for the North.

In other words, Lincoln only needed 3 states to make the Southern vote irrelevant.


The South and the North were also separated culturally

The North was Industrial
The South was Agricultural
The North's economy was dependent on industrialization
The South's economy was dependent on slave labor
The North was mostly urban
The South was mostly rural
The North was Protestant
The South was Baptist
The North was Nationalist
The South was Conservative
The North benefited from protective tariffs
The South was hurt by protective tariffs
The North wanted more Federal powers
The South wanted to protect States' rights

Once again, this is not over Slavery or secession. It was about Lincoln's actions in response to the south's secession.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." ~ James Madison

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." ~ James Madison
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:45:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:39:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/12/2012 4:24:16 PM, 000ike wrote:

hm, would you like to debate the legality of secession (as per 1860, prior to Texas v. White), or the morality of secession?

Either one. I've debated each before.

I'd like to do the morality debate. I'll send the challenge in a few minutes
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:46:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 3:01:41 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
There was really no point in posting this but OK.


Look at the calender.

As the old saying goes: All is fair in love and war.


Pretty sure that only applies to the enemy.

The South being a belligerent nation actually did not have to be recognized.

The title was "Lincoln was Oppressive to the North"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:54:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:46:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2012 3:01:41 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
There was really no point in posting this but OK.


Look at the calender.

As the old saying goes: All is fair in love and war.


Pretty sure that only applies to the enemy.

The South being a belligerent nation actually did not have to be recognized.

The title was "Lincoln was Oppressive to the North"

The subject is "Lincoln was Oppressive to the North" not "Abe Lincoln's Birthday Yeah!"

No the famous line does not only apply to the enemy, I know, I am a military historian. Through history many leaders have done what it takes to win for the better or worse of the world.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 5:03:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:54:10 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 2/12/2012 4:46:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2012 3:01:41 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
There was really no point in posting this but OK.


Look at the calender.

As the old saying goes: All is fair in love and war.


Pretty sure that only applies to the enemy.

The South being a belligerent nation actually did not have to be recognized.

The title was "Lincoln was Oppressive to the North"

The subject is "Lincoln was Oppressive to the North" not "Abe Lincoln's Birthday Yeah!"

No the famous line does not only apply to the enemy, I know, I am a military historian. Through history many leaders have done what it takes to win for the better or worse of the world.

Like Adolf Hitler?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:57:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The ends never justify the means. Just because your intent is good, does not mean you have the right to do evil.

For example; say there was a serial killer, who targeted people with AIDs, in order to stop the spread of AIDS. Say he killed 200 people before finally being placed under arrested. If President, would you pardon the man, or let him swing?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:24:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:24:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
hm, would you like to debate the legality of secession (as per 1860, prior to Texas v. White), or the morality of secession?

I'd like to debate the legality of secession.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:44:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 5:03:33 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2012 4:54:10 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 2/12/2012 4:46:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2012 3:01:41 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
There was really no point in posting this but OK.


Look at the calender.

As the old saying goes: All is fair in love and war.


Pretty sure that only applies to the enemy.

The South being a belligerent nation actually did not have to be recognized.

The title was "Lincoln was Oppressive to the North"

The subject is "Lincoln was Oppressive to the North" not "Abe Lincoln's Birthday Yeah!"

No the famous line does not only apply to the enemy, I know, I am a military historian. Through history many leaders have done what it takes to win for the better or worse of the world.

Like Adolf Hitler?

Yup, but there is one difference between them. Lincoln won. Hitler lost.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:53:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:44:17 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Yup, but there is one difference between them. Lincoln won. Hitler lost.

That is the primary distinction, yes.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:14:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:54:10 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

No the famous line does not only apply to the enemy, I know, I am a military historian.

...
You're fifteen.

Through history many leaders have done what it takes to win for the better or worse of the world.

Argument ad populum. Those "many leaders" should hardly serve as role models to which we compare Lincoln. The "win at all costs" attitude is one of the reasons Lincoln was bad. Keeping the Union together wasn't worth so much bloodshed.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:15:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:44:17 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

Yup, but there is one difference between them. Lincoln won. Hitler lost.

Might makes right, then? If Hitler beat us, the Holocaust would be justified?
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:37:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 9:15:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/12/2012 8:44:17 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

Yup, but there is one difference between them. Lincoln won. Hitler lost.

Might makes right, then? If Hitler beat us, the Holocaust would be justified?

No that did not have much to do with what he used to win the war. That would be more like drafts and logistics. The deaths of the Jews and the ways to win the war were completely different. In fact, the only way the Jews could be connected to the war effort would be through Germany's slave labor however, the Union also had massive industrial power in the war, but it is not like there were problems in their factories to. During World War 1 a government organization was made to intervene in industry to keep workers working, but also making sure they were OK.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 11:05:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 9:37:43 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 2/12/2012 9:15:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/12/2012 8:44:17 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

Yup, but there is one difference between them. Lincoln won. Hitler lost.

Might makes right, then? If Hitler beat us, the Holocaust would be justified?

No that did not have much to do with what he used to win the war. That would be more like drafts and logistics. The deaths of the Jews and the ways to win the war were completely different. In fact, the only way the Jews could be connected to the war effort would be through Germany's slave labor however, the Union also had massive industrial power in the war, but it is not like there were problems in their factories to. During World War 1 a government organization was made to intervene in industry to keep workers working, but also making sure they were OK.

So if instead of the Holocaust, Hitler invested in some mind-washing machine to control the Jews as soldiers to fight for Germany, and therefore managed to win the war, he'd deserve as much praise as Lincoln?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 11:07:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 11:05:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
So if instead of the Holocaust, Hitler invested in some mind-washing machine to control the Jews as soldiers to fight for Germany, and therefore managed to win the war, he'd deserve as much praise as Lincoln?

Duh. The winners write the history books.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 12:03:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I Like him, but he was to authoritarian and rights stripping in a sense
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross