Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Our Dear Lincoln

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 9:51:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In my opinion, Lincoln was a villain and one of the most evil presidents. Check out this selection one of his famous speeches on "equality:"

"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." -Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th US President

Source:
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.)

If anyone would like to debate this topic, I'm free in September.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:02:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not overly fond of Lincoln either, and view him as a shrewd and manipulative opportunist. On top of being a pretty vile racist, he also imprisoned a journalist who was critical of him without trial and even arrested and exiled a member of Congress: http://en.wikipedia.org...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:11:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Plus he didn't really 'free the slaves'. The emancipation proclamation kept slavery in Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware. He freed some of the slaves as part of the war effort, as preventing succession was more important to him than slavery.
Though I think most people already know that.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:13:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 9:51:47 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
In my opinion, Lincoln was a villain and one of the most evil presidents. Check out this selection one of his famous speeches on "equality:"

"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." -Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th US President

Source:
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.)

If anyone would like to debate this topic, I'm free in September.

Have you read Team of Rivals?
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:17:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I get bored of regurgitating libertarian/anarchist "pop" talking points like this. Sure with the movie and all I brought it up to a few people if it seemed organic enough to the conversation but I suppose I'm just getting more cynical like that.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:27:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And yet the movie "Lincoln" won a lot of awards... I guess statism is something they look for in Hollywood. Nothing new.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 11:18:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 9:51:47 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
In my opinion, Lincoln was a villain and one of the most evil presidents. Check out this selection one of his famous speeches on "equality:"

"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." -Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th US President

Source:
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.)

If anyone would like to debate this topic, I'm free in September.

Lincoln was a major racist. His campaign song was actually "Dixie" (at that time a it was a popular song from black face minstrel shows).
Lincoln was also a tyrant in the north, who was extremely oppressive. When he won the war, it boosted his image in the north. When he was assassinated it made him a martyr, in both the north and south. Booth was shocked when southerners turned on him and called him a coward. Booth had to rely on the help of a freed slave, because southerners despised him for shooting Lincoln in the back of the head.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 1:03:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 9:51:47 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
In my opinion, Lincoln was a villain and one of the most evil presidents. Check out this selection one of his famous speeches on "equality:"

"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." -Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th US President

Source:
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.)


If anyone would like to debate this topic, I'm free in September.

Everyone knows this. If he was evil does that make everyone from this time and before evil too? This was the prevailing attitude of the time and for many centuries before that. Are all your ancestors evil? Cause they probably thought the same thing. You have to take into consideration historical context before you call someone evil.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 1:09:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 10:17:00 PM, Noumena wrote:
I get bored of regurgitating libertarian/anarchist "pop" talking points like this. Sure with the movie and all I brought it up to a few people if it seemed organic enough to the conversation but I suppose I'm just getting more cynical like that.

Agreed. I've started to come around to actually liking Lincoln. Also a Daniel Day Lewis fan and liked his character portrayal of Lincoln.

The same old Libertarian criticism of Lincoln is getting old. To the average person, yes they need to be educated on his faults and crossing the line, but to demonize his whole character and his whole Presidency is a mistake.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 1:33:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 1:09:00 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:17:00 PM, Noumena wrote:
I get bored of regurgitating libertarian/anarchist "pop" talking points like this. Sure with the movie and all I brought it up to a few people if it seemed organic enough to the conversation but I suppose I'm just getting more cynical like that.

Agreed. I've started to come around to actually liking Lincoln. Also a Daniel Day Lewis fan and liked his character portrayal of Lincoln.

The same old Libertarian criticism of Lincoln is getting old. To the average person, yes they need to be educated on his faults and crossing the line, but to demonize his whole character and his whole Presidency is a mistake.

Please name a good thing he has done? And don't say "ending slavery" because slavery was ended after his death, and don't say "winning the civil war", because the cost was very great, and the war was unconstitutional (both the war itself and how it was conducted).
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:14:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 9:51:47 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
In my opinion, Lincoln was a villain and one of the most evil presidents. Check out this selection one of his famous speeches on "equality:"

"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." -Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th US President

Source:
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.)

If anyone would like to debate this topic, I'm free in September.

Lincoln was the most outspoken opponent of the Kansas/Nebraska Act, and his debates with Judge/Senator Douglas, and his absolute trouncing of Douglas in these debates (the Kansas/Nebraska Act being the primary focus of the second round of debates) kept Douglas out of the White House, and if Douglas had gotten in, The Kansas/Nebraska Act would have been forced upon all new states entering the union.

This is what lead to Civil War - not slavery in the South, but the passing of the Kansas/Nebraska Act which repealed the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. The Civil War wasn't Lincoln's fault, but yeah...he wasn't the biggest proponent of ending slavery altogether...he grew up in the backwoods of Kentucky.

His ideas did evolve throughout his life, and one can hardly use his statements in a debate that he was trying to win as his only thoughts on the matter.

From the famous Peoria Speech, 1854:

But now new light breaks upon us. Now congress declares this ought never to have been; and the like of it, must never be again. The sacred right of self government is grossly violated by it! We even find some men, who drew their first breath, and every other breath of their lives, under this very restriction, now live in dread of absolute suffocation, if they should be restricted in the "sacred right" of taking slaves to Nebraska. That perfect liberty they sigh for---the liberty of making slaves of other people---Jefferson never thought of; their own father never thought of; they never thought of themselves, a year ago. How fortunate for them, they did not sooner become sensible of their great misery! Oh, how difficult it is to treat with respect, such assaults upon all we have ever really held sacred.

http://www.nps.gov...

Or, if you like a little humor with your history, here's Don Cheadle and Will Farrell reenacting the Lincoln/Douglass relationship in Drunk History...(it's funny, but surprisingly accurate)

http://www.funnyordie.com...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:12:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 6:52:20 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
He cracked down on dissidents and newspaper editors that criticized his regime.

Such as (The Virginia Gazette...The Atlanta Cotton Picker...and...)?

The criticisms are semi-valid, but to simply deride him for those things he did which were anti-Constitution (the Presidential Oath, as it now stands, is because of Lincoln, and something of a circumvention of the Constitution), and not applaud him for his victories, is to build a revisionist history of hate.

This is the ONE AND ONLY time in American history where I would argue that the ends justified the means.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:32:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.
I hate that term "preserving the union". It's a propagandized term for "preventing secession". The union would still exist if the south seceded, there would just be fewer states. The same kind of logic argues that if people were able to renounce their citizenship, there would be no citizens. It's a fallacious statement. When the colonies seceded the british empire still survived well into the 20th century.
I'm not going to give Lincoln credit for preserving the union, because the union was never threatened. I will give him credit for strengthening the union state, and by effect weakening the member states.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:34:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 1:09:00 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:.

Agreed. I've started to come around to actually liking Lincoln. Also a Daniel Day Lewis fan and liked his character portrayal of Lincoln.

If its actually that good maybe I'll go see it. I've never been a fan of Lewis though.

The same old Libertarian criticism of Lincoln is getting old. To the average person, yes they need to be educated on his faults and crossing the line, but to demonize his whole character and his whole Presidency is a mistake.

It's not that. I wholeheartedly believe he was a major dick who directly caused the deaths of over half a million people for no good reason. I'm just too cynical at this point to try and convince people during conversation. I swear its harder explaining anarchism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:37:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.

You do realize it is within a state's rights to secede. Lincoln blatantly and in plain view denied them this right. Then he declared war on the new confederation of states, simply for taking state property back.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:40:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:37:39 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.

You do realize it is within a state's rights to secede. Lincoln blatantly and in plain view denied them this right. Then he declared war on the new confederation of states, simply for taking state property back.

Nothing Lincoln did was necessarily good, as a result of his unconstitutional war, slavery was lifted. Slavery is of course immoral and the most vile blemish on America's history, but we replaced the vile historical blemish of slavery with a lie to our students of history, the lie that Lincoln did what he had to do to preserve the union and end slavery. Lincoln did what he wanted to do because no one was strong enough to tell him he couldn't.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:46:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 6:52:20 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
He cracked down on dissidents and newspaper editors that criticized his regime.

You mean the executive order on may 18, 1864 to Major-General John A. Drx?

"Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York... you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom" ~ A. Lincoln
"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
2/26/2013 7:53:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:12:37 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:52:20 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
He cracked down on dissidents and newspaper editors that criticized his regime.

Such as (The Virginia Gazette...The Atlanta Cotton Picker...and...)?

The criticisms are semi-valid, but to simply deride him for those things he did which were anti-Constitution (the Presidential Oath, as it now stands, is because of Lincoln, and something of a circumvention of the Constitution), and not applaud him for his victories, is to build a revisionist history of hate.

This is the ONE AND ONLY time in American history where I would argue that the ends justified the means.
Only because you are reflecting on historical events long before your time. The ends never justify the means and to look back in hindsight and say "those evils were sufferable for the result" is a bias view on history. If you lived in that time and you were the subject of Lincoln's boot, you may feel differently. The ends never justify the means.
"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
2/26/2013 7:57:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:40:14 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:37:39 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.

You do realize it is within a state's rights to secede. Lincoln blatantly and in plain view denied them this right. Then he declared war on the new confederation of states, simply for taking state property back.

Nothing Lincoln did was necessarily good, as a result of his unconstitutional war, slavery was lifted. Slavery is of course immoral and the most vile blemish on America's history, but we replaced the vile historical blemish of slavery with a lie to our students of history, the lie that Lincoln did what he had to do to preserve the union and end slavery. Lincoln did what he wanted to do because no one was strong enough to tell him he couldn't.

Hell he gave his son a military commission, than his son turned a cannon on congress. The fact his son turned a cannon on congress is telling of Lincoln's personal desires communicated to his son and family.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:18:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:53:42 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:12:37 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:52:20 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
He cracked down on dissidents and newspaper editors that criticized his regime.

Such as (The Virginia Gazette...The Atlanta Cotton Picker...and...)?

The criticisms are semi-valid, but to simply deride him for those things he did which were anti-Constitution (the Presidential Oath, as it now stands, is because of Lincoln, and something of a circumvention of the Constitution), and not applaud him for his victories, is to build a revisionist history of hate.

This is the ONE AND ONLY time in American history where I would argue that the ends justified the means.
Only because you are reflecting on historical events long before your time. The ends never justify the means and to look back in hindsight and say "those evils were sufferable for the result" is a bias view on history. If you lived in that time and you were the subject of Lincoln's boot, you may feel differently. The ends never justify the means.

Yes, like The Kansas/Nebraska Act.

I've already posted a more comprehensive, detailed opinion of why I think thi whole thread is bullsh!t. How 'bout you comment on that one rather than cherry picking the epilogue without reading the book?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:24:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:32:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.
I hate that term "preserving the union". It's a propagandized term for "preventing secession". The union would still exist if the south seceded, there would just be fewer states. The same kind of logic argues that if people were able to renounce their citizenship, there would be no citizens. It's a fallacious statement. When the colonies seceded the british empire still survived well into the 20th century.
I'm not going to give Lincoln credit for preserving the union, because the union was never threatened. I will give him credit for strengthening the union state, and by effect weakening the member states.

The Union would have crumbled without the south. Contrary to current times, the South was the economic engine of the United States, and without it, the Federal Government would have folded, most likely.

Hell, if it wasn't for the $300 get out of Union Service card Lincoln gave people the opportunity to buy late in the war, the Federal Government just might have folded before the end of the war.

But again, let's look into why the south seceded. It wasn't to just preserve slavery in the south, it was to FORCE slavery on any new state that entered the union.

This is what the civil war was about - The Kansas/Nebraska Act and the repeal of The Missouri Compromise (and the updated 1850 Compromise).

This wasn't about freedom, regardless of your thoughts about the south. This was about anti-freedom, and forcing one's values on a group which is only connected through membership in the USA.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:27:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:40:14 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:37:39 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.

You do realize it is within a state's rights to secede. Lincoln blatantly and in plain view denied them this right. Then he declared war on the new confederation of states, simply for taking state property back.

Nothing Lincoln did was necessarily good, as a result of his unconstitutional war, slavery was lifted. Slavery is of course immoral and the most vile blemish on America's history, but we replaced the vile historical blemish of slavery with a lie to our students of history, the lie that Lincoln did what he had to do to preserve the union and end slavery. Lincoln did what he wanted to do because no one was strong enough to tell him he couldn't.

If the South just would have been content to leave well enough alone, the war never would have taken place, BUT THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL KANSAS/NEBRASKA ACT which would have forced every new state in the union to be a slave state, forced the Civil War.

It wasn't Lincoln's fault. It was Buchanan's fault, which is why he is the only president in history worse that George W. Bush.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:31:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:24:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:32:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.
I hate that term "preserving the union". It's a propagandized term for "preventing secession". The union would still exist if the south seceded, there would just be fewer states. The same kind of logic argues that if people were able to renounce their citizenship, there would be no citizens. It's a fallacious statement. When the colonies seceded the british empire still survived well into the 20th century.
I'm not going to give Lincoln credit for preserving the union, because the union was never threatened. I will give him credit for strengthening the union state, and by effect weakening the member states.

The Union would have crumbled without the south. Contrary to current times, the South was the economic engine of the United States, and without it, the Federal Government would have folded, most likely.

Hell, if it wasn't for the $300 get out of Union Service card Lincoln gave people the opportunity to buy late in the war, the Federal Government just might have folded before the end of the war.

But again, let's look into why the south seceded. It wasn't to just preserve slavery in the south, it was to FORCE slavery on any new state that entered the union.

This is what the civil war was about - The Kansas/Nebraska Act and the repeal of The Missouri Compromise (and the updated 1850 Compromise).

This wasn't about freedom, regardless of your thoughts about the south. This was about anti-freedom, and forcing one's values on a group which is only connected through membership in the USA.

The Union was stronger economically than the South was by the time of the Civil War as a result of the rise of manufacturing.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:54:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:31:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:24:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:32:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.
I hate that term "preserving the union". It's a propagandized term for "preventing secession". The union would still exist if the south seceded, there would just be fewer states. The same kind of logic argues that if people were able to renounce their citizenship, there would be no citizens. It's a fallacious statement. When the colonies seceded the british empire still survived well into the 20th century.
I'm not going to give Lincoln credit for preserving the union, because the union was never threatened. I will give him credit for strengthening the union state, and by effect weakening the member states.

The Union would have crumbled without the south. Contrary to current times, the South was the economic engine of the United States, and without it, the Federal Government would have folded, most likely.

Hell, if it wasn't for the $300 get out of Union Service card Lincoln gave people the opportunity to buy late in the war, the Federal Government just might have folded before the end of the war.

But again, let's look into why the south seceded. It wasn't to just preserve slavery in the south, it was to FORCE slavery on any new state that entered the union.

This is what the civil war was about - The Kansas/Nebraska Act and the repeal of The Missouri Compromise (and the updated 1850 Compromise).

This wasn't about freedom, regardless of your thoughts about the south. This was about anti-freedom, and forcing one's values on a group which is only connected through membership in the USA.

The Union was stronger economically than the South was by the time of the Civil War as a result of the rise of manufacturing.

as went cotton, so went the economy.

http://eh.net...

The Industrial Revolution didn't really kick in, in the US, until Ford figured out how to pump out cars via an assembly line...you had steel and oil before that, but it wasn't until crazy ol' Henry brought it all together, materials and economic ingenuity, that the North became the economic power in this country.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:54:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:24:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:32:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.
I hate that term "preserving the union". It's a propagandized term for "preventing secession". The union would still exist if the south seceded, there would just be fewer states. The same kind of logic argues that if people were able to renounce their citizenship, there would be no citizens. It's a fallacious statement. When the colonies seceded the british empire still survived well into the 20th century.
I'm not going to give Lincoln credit for preserving the union, because the union was never threatened. I will give him credit for strengthening the union state, and by effect weakening the member states.

The Union would have crumbled without the south. Contrary to current times, the South was the economic engine of the United States, and without it, the Federal Government would have folded, most likely.

After the war the south was an economic disaster for decades, so well played Lincoln, well played.
This arguement is historically fallacious, because after the war the south was more of an economic burden and yet the union survived.
Furthermore, this argument could be used to support southern secession, since the south were a minority when it comes to federal representation.

Hell, if it wasn't for the $300 get out of Union Service card Lincoln gave people the opportunity to buy late in the war, the Federal Government just might have folded before the end of the war.

Not true. That is a pretty bold assertion, with no source.
But again, let's look into why the south seceded. It wasn't to just preserve slavery in the south, it was to FORCE slavery on any new state that entered the union.

That is not why the south seceded. In fact, if they were no longer in the union how could they force slavery on new states admitted to the union? They didn't secede over slavery, but slavery did impact the decision to secede. They seceded over representation, and the fear of nationalism.

This is what the civil war was about - The Kansas/Nebraska Act and the repeal of The Missouri Compromise (and the updated 1850 Compromise).

No, the last straw which pushed the south to secede was the electoral college, which allowed a few heavily populated northern states to decide the presidency. By splitting the union between an agricultural south, an industrial north, and a western frontier the nation became culturally divided. Than by splitting the nation into slave states and free states, the states in effect formed political confederations in which slave states were pitted against free states. The 19th century Republican Party was nationalistic, and there was a growing movement in the north to industrialize the south. The south feared they would lose their culture to nationalism. The south was also economicly dependent on slave labor due to a labor deficit. In addition to this the south was often economicly raped by pro northern policies, such as the protective tariffs.
This wasn't about freedom, regardless of your thoughts about the south.
This was about anti-freedom, and forcing one's values on a group which is only connected through membership in the USA.
I agree, the south seceded because the north was trying to force their values on the south
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:14:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:54:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:24:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:32:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:21:41 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, not giving Lincoln credit for preserving the union is like not giving Kennedy credit for the moon landing.

It's ridiculous.
I hate that term "preserving the union". It's a propagandized term for "preventing secession". The union would still exist if the south seceded, there would just be fewer states. The same kind of logic argues that if people were able to renounce their citizenship, there would be no citizens. It's a fallacious statement. When the colonies seceded the british empire still survived well into the 20th century.
I'm not going to give Lincoln credit for preserving the union, because the union was never threatened. I will give him credit for strengthening the union state, and by effect weakening the member states.

The Union would have crumbled without the south. Contrary to current times, the South was the economic engine of the United States, and without it, the Federal Government would have folded, most likely.

After the war the south was an economic disaster for decades, so well played Lincoln, well played.
This arguement is historically fallacious, because after the war the south was more of an economic burden and yet the union survived.

After the war, the whole country was an economic disaster. It was the 1st Great Depression.

My argument was historically fallacious. You are obfuscating the facts.
Furthermore, this argument could be used to support southern secession, since the south were a minority when it comes to federal representation.

Hell, if it wasn't for the $300 get out of Union Service card Lincoln gave people the opportunity to buy late in the war, the Federal Government just might have folded before the end of the war.

Not true. That is a pretty bold assertion, with no source.

See Great Depression...

But again, let's look into why the south seceded. It wasn't to just preserve slavery in the south, it was to FORCE slavery on any new state that entered the union.

That is not why the south seceded. In fact, if they were no longer in the union how could they force slavery on new states admitted to the union? They didn't secede over slavery, but slavery did impact the decision to secede. They seceded over representation, and the fear of nationalism.

Yes, which was why they tried to force the Kansas/Nebraska Act on the country before they seceded...they wanted more slave states to preserve slavery.

That was the representation issue - more slave states meant preserving slavery, which is why in both the house and senate, the Kansas/Nebraska Act passed - the southern senators and representatives voted unanimously to pass it (I think 2 southern house members out of 59 voted against it...no southern senators did).

This is what the civil war was about - The Kansas/Nebraska Act and the repeal of The Missouri Compromise (and the updated 1850 Compromise).

No, the last straw which pushed the south to secede was the electoral college, which allowed a few heavily populated northern states to decide the presidency. By splitting the union between an agricultural south, an industrial north, and a western frontier the nation became culturally divided. Than by splitting the nation into slave states and free states, the states in effect formed political confederations in which slave states were pitted against free states. The 19th century Republican Party was nationalistic, and there was a growing movement in the north to industrialize the south. The south feared they would lose their culture to nationalism. The south was also economicly dependent on slave labor due to a labor deficit. In addition to this the south was often economicly raped by pro northern policies, such as the protective tariffs.

The south was NOT dependent on slave labor. Abolishing slavery was the best thing possible for the marginal cost of labor in the south. If they weren't so pig-headed, they could have figured this out on their own, but noooooooooooo...they have to try to force every new state to be a slave state, even though slavery was no longer economically beneficial (ironically, it was the cotton gin that made slavery economically untenable)

This wasn't about freedom, regardless of your thoughts about the south.
This was about anti-freedom, and forcing one's values on a group which is only connected through membership in the USA.
I agree, the south seceded because the north was trying to force their values on the south

Wrong, Uncle Sambo.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:15:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
above - my argument wasn't historically fallacious. etc, etc, etc...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:43:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:14:27 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:54:43 AM, DanT wrote:
After the war the south was an economic disaster for decades, so well played Lincoln, well played.
This arguement is historically fallacious, because after the war the south was more of an economic burden and yet the union survived.

After the war, the whole country was an economic disaster.

"The North in 1865 was an extremely prosperous region. Its economy had boomed during the war, bringing economic growth to both the factories and the farms. Since the war had been fought almost entirely on Southern soil, the North did not have to face the task of rebuilding.

Despite its relative prosperity, the war had been costly for the North. Three methods had been employed to raise funds:

1. Taxation: Protective tariffs, excise taxes on luxury goods, and an income tax were all employed during the war
2. Printing paper money: The Union government printed more than $450 million in "greenbacks" during the war - these notes were not redeemable in gold and their value fluctuated widely during the conflict. Consequently, a great greenback controversy developed
3. Selling bond (borrowing): Union securities were marketed to investors both in the North and in Europe...

The South, however, had sustained immense damage. Entire cities lay in ruins. Thousands of people lacked the means to provide food, clothing, or shelter for themselves or their dependents. The Federal government did little to assist the needy. The creation of the Freedmen"s Bureau was one of the few efforts to do so."
http://www.u-s-history.com...

It was the 1st Great Depression.

My argument was historically fallacious.
yes, yes it was.
You are obfuscating the facts.
Pot called the kettle what now?
Furthermore, this argument could be used to support southern secession, since the south were a minority when it comes to federal representation.

Not true. That is a pretty bold assertion, with no source.

See Great Depression...

"The North in 1865 was an extremely prosperous region. Its economy had boomed during the war, bringing economic growth to both the factories and the farms. Since the war had been fought almost entirely on Southern soil, the North did not have to face the task of rebuilding."
http://www.u-s-history.com...

Yes, which was why they tried to force the Kansas/Nebraska Act on the country before they seceded...they wanted more slave states to preserve slavery.

The Kansas-Nabraska act was in 1854, the states began seceding from the union in 1860 (6 years later).
That is like saying the reason people were petitioning to secede after the 2012 election was because of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

You seem to be focusing on only 1 aspect of the Kansas-Nabraska act (the repeal of the Missouri compromise); the purpose of the Kansas-Nabraska act was to allow States to determine for themselves whether they would permit slavery or not, via popular sovereignty. Slavery was not forced upon new states, the new states decided for themselves. The Missouri compromise forced new states to accept slavery, and if the Missouri compromise was never repealed there would have been more slave states by the time the states chose to secede.
That was the representation issue
No the representation issue was that the 15 slave states had a collective electoral vote of 120. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Illinois alone had a collective electoral vote of 122. Excluding New Jersey (which was a swing state) the north had a collective electoral vote of 169, which was more than enough to dictate who would be president. If you include New Jersey the vote was even higher.

The electoral college is also reflective of congressional representation.

- more slave states meant preserving slavery, which is why in both the house and senate, the Kansas/Nebraska Act passed - the southern senators and representatives voted unanimously to pass it (I think 2 southern house members out of 59 voted against it...no southern senators did).
In 1848 there were 14 free states and 15 slave states. In 1858 there were 17 free states and 15 slave states. In 1861 there were 19 free states and 15 slave states.

Darn those slave states, and their Kansas-Nabraska act!

No, the last straw which pushed the south to secede was the electoral college, which allowed a few heavily populated northern states to decide the presidency. By splitting the union between an agricultural south, an industrial north, and a western frontier the nation became culturally divided. Than by splitting the nation into slave states and free states, the states in effect formed political confederations in which slave states were pitted against free states. The 19th century Republican Party was nationalistic, and there was a growing movement in the north to industrialize the south. The south feared they would lose their culture to nationalism. The south was also economicly dependent on slave labor due to a labor deficit. In addition to this the south was often economicly raped by pro northern policies, such as the protective tariffs.

The south was NOT dependent on slave labor. Abolishing slavery was the best thing possible for the marginal cost of labor in the south.
No, the south had a labor deficit, due to their small population. This hurt productivity. In order to meet the demand for more labor slaves were needed. It was believed that the cotton gin would reduce the demand for slave labor, but it actually increased the demand for slave labor, as well as the demand for more farm land. The cotton increased the profitability of cotton, thus increasing the demand for cheap labor to pick and grow the cotton.

If they weren't so pig-headed, they could have figured this out on their own, but noooooooooooo...they have to try to force every new state to be a slave state,
Again, they did not force new states to become slave states. The last slave state to enter the union was Texas, in 1845.
even though slavery was no longer economically beneficial (ironically, it was the cotton gin that made slavery economically untenable)

No the cotton Gin increased the south's dependency on slavery.

"Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. "
http://www.eliwhitney.org...

I agree, the south seceded because the north was trying to force their values on the south

Wrong, Uncle Sambo.
If you say I'm wrong than I must be right.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle