Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Was Lincoln Right

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 12:31:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To not allow the salve holding states to suceed from the union?

I want your opinions on this.

It seems justified to me. The real question come up though: Do states have the right to suceed off a simple political/social disagreement, even if the matter can be solved? For example, what if the United States was strictly against abortion, but New York wanted to secede from the Union in order to fully legalize it?

At what line does state power cross the national power?

I ask because a friend of mine claims that Lincoln is tyrannical because he "forcing" the states to stay within the Union or else they go to war with the government.
Nolite Timere
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 4:48:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the states had the right to secede. It was a legitimate political action that the North would not accept. They entered into the Union, I feel like if the Union was no longer serving their needs they should be able to leave.

And for the record, slavery, industrialization, states rights, sovereignty and property rights were not small issues. They were not akin to abortion.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:22:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:48:21 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I think the states had the right to secede. It was a legitimate political action that the North would not accept. They entered into the Union, I feel like if the Union was no longer serving their needs they should be able to leave.

And for the record, slavery, industrialization, states rights, sovereignty and property rights were not small issues. They were not akin to abortion.

I stopped taking most libertarian args for secession seriously when I realized that their reasoning lied mostly in outdated liberal values.
: 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.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:49:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 12:31:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
To not allow the salve holding states to suceed from the union?

I want your opinions on this.

It seems justified to me. The real question come up though: Do states have the right to suceed off a simple political/social disagreement, even if the matter can be solved? For example, what if the United States was strictly against abortion, but New York wanted to secede from the Union in order to fully legalize it?

At what line does state power cross the national power?

I ask because a friend of mine claims that Lincoln is tyrannical because he "forcing" the states to stay within the Union or else they go to war with the government.

I think so. I know lots of people who rant and rave about how horrible Lincoln was and how the civil war wasn't really about slavery..

Btw, if you're from Romania how do you know about Lincoln and have a friend who knows about him?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 8:06:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 6:49:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/26/2014 12:31:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
To not allow the salve holding states to suceed from the union?

I want your opinions on this.

It seems justified to me. The real question come up though: Do states have the right to suceed off a simple political/social disagreement, even if the matter can be solved? For example, what if the United States was strictly against abortion, but New York wanted to secede from the Union in order to fully legalize it?

At what line does state power cross the national power?

I ask because a friend of mine claims that Lincoln is tyrannical because he "forcing" the states to stay within the Union or else they go to war with the government.

I think so. I know lots of people who rant and rave about how horrible Lincoln was and how the civil war wasn't really about slavery..

Btw, if you're from Romania how do you know about Lincoln and have a friend who knows about him?

Agreed. How does anyone know about Lincoln outside of the U.S. I thought we kept that secret under super tight control.
: 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.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 8:35:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 6:49:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/26/2014 12:31:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
To not allow the salve holding states to suceed from the union?

I want your opinions on this.

It seems justified to me. The real question come up though: Do states have the right to suceed off a simple political/social disagreement, even if the matter can be solved? For example, what if the United States was strictly against abortion, but New York wanted to secede from the Union in order to fully legalize it?

At what line does state power cross the national power?

I ask because a friend of mine claims that Lincoln is tyrannical because he "forcing" the states to stay within the Union or else they go to war with the government.

I think so. I know lots of people who rant and rave about how horrible Lincoln was and how the civil war wasn't really about slavery..

I think really at the base of everything slavery really was the primary issue. Without the slaves the South would not have been "rollin' in the dough" as much as they had been. They also considered the slaves to be their property like any animal, and that the government had no right to grant their "property" freedom just as how the government can't force you to let your cattle roam free from your ranch.

Btw, if you're from Romania how do you know about Lincoln and have a friend who knows about him?

We like to keep upon American stuff. Quite a rich history and political system.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 8:39:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:48:21 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I think the states had the right to secede.

Could that not cause unnecessary division? It would seem that allowing them that power gives the state too much power. It's like each state being a country mildly glued together to their surrounding countries through mutual agreement rather than the national government truly being the ultimate ruler of the entire country.

It was a legitimate political action that the North would not accept. They entered into the Union, I feel like if the Union was no longer serving their needs they should be able to leave.

However t was slavery was ultimately unconstitutional, meaning the South was in the wrong. To avoid the change they just wanted to falt out leave the U.S.

I say abide by U.S. law or get out. You don't need to split up the country over disagreement. The United States stands for equal freedom, human dignity, ect. so you can't take a piece of the country away for not agreeing with what the country stands for.

And for the record, slavery, industrialization, states rights, sovereignty and property rights were not small issues. They were not akin to abortion.
Nolite Timere
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:39:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 12:31:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
To not allow the salve holding states to suceed from the union?
Legally, no, I don't think he was.
Morally, yes.

I want your opinions on this.

It seems justified to me. The real question come up though: Do states have the right to suceed off a simple political/social disagreement, even if the matter can be solved? For example, what if the United States was strictly against abortion, but New York wanted to secede from the Union in order to fully legalize it?

So, what would be grounds to leave the union?
Is being part of the union voluntary or not?

At what line does state power cross the national power?

I ask because a friend of mine claims that Lincoln is tyrannical because he "forcing" the states to stay within the Union or else they go to war with the government.

I would say he was.
Slavery was how the south was structured economically, and the south knew that slavery was on its way out with the free state/slave state ruling for new states.
My work here is, finally, done.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 1:04:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 11:39:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/26/2014 12:31:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
To not allow the salve holding states to suceed from the union?
Legally, no, I don't think he was.
Morally, yes.

So it was therefore justified. What is morally right should always be more important than what is legal or illegal.

I want your opinions on this.

It seems justified to me. The real question come up though: Do states have the right to suceed off a simple political/social disagreement, even if the matter can be solved? For example, what if the United States was strictly against abortion, but New York wanted to secede from the Union in order to fully legalize it?

So, what would be grounds to leave the union?
Is being part of the union voluntary or not?

I would say it isn't voluntary. The states should be inherently one nation without the power to break off. If you don't like the way the country runs, then instead of splitting the country to pieces just get out of the country.

At what line does state power cross the national power?

I ask because a friend of mine claims that Lincoln is tyrannical because he "forcing" the states to stay within the Union or else they go to war with the government.

I would say he was.
Slavery was how the south was structured economically, and the south knew that slavery was on its way out with the free state/slave state ruling for new states.

I guess in a certain view he may have been, but I believe it was morally justified.
Nolite Timere
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 1:20:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 12:31:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
To not allow the salve holding states to suceed from the union?

Morally or logically?
I want your opinions on this.

It seems justified to me.
Really? How was it justified?

The real question come up though: Do states have the right to suceed off a simple political/social disagreement, even if the matter can be solved?
They did not secede just over slavery. The south wanted to secede since the Jackson Administration, and maybe even further back than that. The south and north were culturally different, and the Federal Government often favored the industrial north. When Lincoln was elected he won without a single southern electoral vote. A handful of northern states dominated the electoral system, because they had a much larger population. The north also had a greater congressional representation due to their larger population. The Federal government was imposing heavy protective tariffs that promoted the growth of northern industries while hurting southern exports. The south saw themselves as being vassals of the north.
For example, what if the United States was strictly against abortion, but New York wanted to secede from the Union in order to fully legalize it?

In my opinion, they would have the right to do so.
At what line does state power cross the national power?

You mean at what line does state power cross the federal power? As a federation we are a nation of nations. Each state is their own nation, united into one large American Nation.
I ask because a friend of mine claims that Lincoln is tyrannical because he "forcing" the states to stay within the Union or else they go to war with the government.
Technically he is correct.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 2:15:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 1:04:09 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:39:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/26/2014 12:31:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
To not allow the salve holding states to suceed from the union?
Legally, no, I don't think he was.
Morally, yes.

So it was therefore justified. What is morally right should always be more important than what is legal or illegal.
If the war was fought over slavery, then Lincoln should have freed the slaves day one, not two years into the war.

I want your opinions on this.

It seems justified to me. The real question come up though: Do states have the right to suceed off a simple political/social disagreement, even if the matter can be solved? For example, what if the United States was strictly against abortion, but New York wanted to secede from the Union in order to fully legalize it?

So, what would be grounds to leave the union?
Is being part of the union voluntary or not?


I would say it isn't voluntary. The states should be inherently one nation without the power to break off. If you don't like the way the country runs, then instead of splitting the country to pieces just get out of the country.
It was voluntary to join the union, why not then to leave it?
And, they are getting out of the country, like they used to be, by succeeding.

At what line does state power cross the national power?

I ask because a friend of mine claims that Lincoln is tyrannical because he "forcing" the states to stay within the Union or else they go to war with the government.

I would say he was.
Slavery was how the south was structured economically, and the south knew that slavery was on its way out with the free state/slave state ruling for new states.

I guess in a certain view he may have been, but I believe it was morally justified.

Again, if the war was about slavery, then Lincoln should have freed the slaves at day one, since his hand was forced. As it was, it is entirely feasible that the North could have won the war, the South not succeeding, and slavery still around for 50 or so more years.
You can't claim the moral high ground, IMO.
My work here is, finally, done.