Total Posts:137|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why was Abraham Lincoln wrong?

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 4:26:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

- Civil War is America's bloodiest
- Rest of the world got rid of sanctioned slavery without war, which suggests that America's bloodiest was was also our most meaningless
- He was very anti-civil liberties during the war years (which is more a general criticism of government, but it was pretty bad under Lincoln)
- Basically quashed the notion of succession which is what America was founded on

And more petty/negligible criticisms:
- Emancipation proclamation was meaningless. It freed slaves in an area where Lincoln didn't have the power to do so and specifically didn't free slaves where he did
- He got really racist and borderline pro-slavery in those Lincoln-Douglass debates
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:19:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 4:26:45 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

- Civil War is America's bloodiest

So? WWII was the world's bloodiest. Should Europe and the Soviets have rolled over because they didn't want to fight?

- Rest of the world got rid of sanctioned slavery without war, which suggests that America's bloodiest was was also our most meaningless

Bullsh*t. Again the myth that slavery was dying a 'natural death.'

- He was very anti-civil liberties during the war years (which is more a general criticism of government, but it was pretty bad under Lincoln)

Presidents get emergency powers during wartime. This is hardly controversial, unless you're an anarchist.

- Basically quashed the notion of succession which is what America was founded on

What?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 3:02:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 4:26:45 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

- Civil War is America's bloodiest

Lincoln didn't cause the Civil War. Pinning such a deep and complex conflict on one man is very shallow and lazy.

- Rest of the world got rid of sanctioned slavery without war, which suggests that America's bloodiest was was also our most meaningless

This simply doesn't follow. What's true for one country isn't true for another. This is a completely baseless assertion. Other countries broke away from Britain without a war, was the Revolutionary War meaningless because of that?

- He was very anti-civil liberties during the war years (which is more a general criticism of government, but it was pretty bad under Lincoln)

War time power, whine about it as you may, has its purpose.

- Basically quashed the notion of succession which is what America was founded on

He wanted there to be an America period. Which there is thanks to him.

And more petty/negligible criticisms:
- Emancipation proclamation was meaningless. It freed slaves in an area where Lincoln didn't have the power to do so and specifically didn't free slaves where he did

Agree. It was a political gesture but it doesn't diminish his presidency.

- He got really racist and borderline pro-slavery in those Lincoln-Douglass debates

Ultimately ended slavery in the United States through his actions though. Actions speak louder than words.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 3:43:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

My opinion is that Lincoln was "wrong" because he illegally waged a war against a population of duly represented people expressing very basic constitutional rights. I don't believe our founding fathers EVER meant to give federal government the power to violently force a voluntary union.

Going a bit deeper (as the pure political cynic that I am) I do not believe for one minute that the Civil War had anything to do with the plight of the black man. If Lincoln"s political party were reaping the same kind of profits and power from slavery (instead of getting beat over the head by it) that the opposition was, it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a war would have ever been fought in this country over it's practice.

Lincoln, more than any other single human, had the power and authority to either wage this war, or seek a peaceful alternative. His actions make it clear (to me at least) that he was far more concerned with power and profits than he ever was with constitutional rights or racial inequality.

That is (in a brief overview) why I think Lincoln was wrong.

For posterity's sake though, I would like to add two things;
1) I believe Lincoln was one of (if not the) most brilliant politicians I have ever studied.
2) Let's Go Hoooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:01:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:43:48 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

My opinion is that Lincoln was "wrong" because he illegally waged a war against a population of duly represented people expressing very basic constitutional rights. I don't believe our founding fathers EVER meant to give federal government the power to violently force a voluntary union.

Going a bit deeper (as the pure political cynic that I am) I do not believe for one minute that the Civil War had anything to do with the plight of the black man. If Lincoln"s political party were reaping the same kind of profits and power from slavery (instead of getting beat over the head by it) that the opposition was, it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a war would have ever been fought in this country over it's practice.

Lincoln, more than any other single human, had the power and authority to either wage this war, or seek a peaceful alternative. His actions make it clear (to me at least) that he was far more concerned with power and profits than he ever was with constitutional rights or racial inequality.

That is (in a brief overview) why I think Lincoln was wrong.

For posterity's sake though, I would like to add two things;
1) I believe Lincoln was one of (if not the) most brilliant politicians I have ever studied.
2) Let's Go Hoooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do I respond to fractal wrongness? The founding fathers affirmed the right of secession? Jesus Christ.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:01:54 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:43:48 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

My opinion is that Lincoln was "wrong" because he illegally waged a war against a population of duly represented people expressing very basic constitutional rights. I don't believe our founding fathers EVER meant to give federal government the power to violently force a voluntary union.

Going a bit deeper (as the pure political cynic that I am) I do not believe for one minute that the Civil War had anything to do with the plight of the black man. If Lincoln"s political party were reaping the same kind of profits and power from slavery (instead of getting beat over the head by it) that the opposition was, it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a war would have ever been fought in this country over it's practice.

Lincoln, more than any other single human, had the power and authority to either wage this war, or seek a peaceful alternative. His actions make it clear (to me at least) that he was far more concerned with power and profits than he ever was with constitutional rights or racial inequality.

That is (in a brief overview) why I think Lincoln was wrong.

For posterity's sake though, I would like to add two things;
1) I believe Lincoln was one of (if not the) most brilliant politicians I have ever studied.
2) Let's Go Hoooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do I respond to fractal wrongness? The founding fathers affirmed the right of secession? Jesus Christ.

Damn dude. Sorry for responding to your question with an opinion that apparently runs contrary to your own! As far as I can tell, this is not a fact based question and there is no right or wrong. How about you stop being pretentious and show me how my opinion is fundamentally unsupportable??

You may consider reading into some of my previous posts before you start though (I've even covered this very topic). Every time I've ever discussed civil war on this website people end up running away from the discussion and refusing to defend the (obviously uneducated) things they have said. I have spent a WHOLE LOT of time justifying my opinions with historical fact. I'm not overbearing enough to insist my opinion is better than yours, but I'm more than happy to defend it in the face of inquiry!
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 7:12:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:01:54 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:43:48 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

My opinion is that Lincoln was "wrong" because he illegally waged a war against a population of duly represented people expressing very basic constitutional rights. I don't believe our founding fathers EVER meant to give federal government the power to violently force a voluntary union.

Going a bit deeper (as the pure political cynic that I am) I do not believe for one minute that the Civil War had anything to do with the plight of the black man. If Lincoln"s political party were reaping the same kind of profits and power from slavery (instead of getting beat over the head by it) that the opposition was, it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a war would have ever been fought in this country over it's practice.

Lincoln, more than any other single human, had the power and authority to either wage this war, or seek a peaceful alternative. His actions make it clear (to me at least) that he was far more concerned with power and profits than he ever was with constitutional rights or racial inequality.

That is (in a brief overview) why I think Lincoln was wrong.

For posterity's sake though, I would like to add two things;
1) I believe Lincoln was one of (if not the) most brilliant politicians I have ever studied.
2) Let's Go Hoooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do I respond to fractal wrongness? The founding fathers affirmed the right of secession? Jesus Christ.

Damn dude. Sorry for responding to your question with an opinion that apparently runs contrary to your own! As far as I can tell, this is not a fact based question and there is no right or wrong. How about you stop being pretentious and show me how my opinion is fundamentally unsupportable??

Opinions =/= arguments.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 8:39:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 7:12:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 5:01:54 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:43:48 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

My opinion is that Lincoln was "wrong" because he illegally waged a war against a population of duly represented people expressing very basic constitutional rights. I don't believe our founding fathers EVER meant to give federal government the power to violently force a voluntary union.

Going a bit deeper (as the pure political cynic that I am) I do not believe for one minute that the Civil War had anything to do with the plight of the black man. If Lincoln"s political party were reaping the same kind of profits and power from slavery (instead of getting beat over the head by it) that the opposition was, it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a war would have ever been fought in this country over it's practice.

Lincoln, more than any other single human, had the power and authority to either wage this war, or seek a peaceful alternative. His actions make it clear (to me at least) that he was far more concerned with power and profits than he ever was with constitutional rights or racial inequality.

That is (in a brief overview) why I think Lincoln was wrong.

For posterity's sake though, I would like to add two things;
1) I believe Lincoln was one of (if not the) most brilliant politicians I have ever studied.
2) Let's Go Hoooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do I respond to fractal wrongness? The founding fathers affirmed the right of secession? Jesus Christ.

Damn dude. Sorry for responding to your question with an opinion that apparently runs contrary to your own! As far as I can tell, this is not a fact based question and there is no right or wrong. How about you stop being pretentious and show me how my opinion is fundamentally unsupportable??

Opinions =/= arguments.

LOL! You are the one that took an argumentative stance against my opinion in the first place. So no then, you're not going to stop being pretentious and show me how my opinions are fundamentLlly unsupportable? Is that about right? Let's just say, I'm not really too surprised!
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 9:49:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What could I have said? I don't have time to refute every libertarian on the internet. A theologian doesn't search Richard Dawkins on Youtube to explain Christianity to commenters. Either make a sane, detailed explanation of why Lincoln was wrong/a tyrant or don't be on this thread at all. I'm too tired for this.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 9:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 9:49:13 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
What could I have said? I don't have time to refute every libertarian on the internet. A theologian doesn't search Richard Dawkins on Youtube to explain Christianity to commenters. Either make a sane, detailed explanation of why Lincoln was wrong/a tyrant or don't be on this thread at all. I'm too tired for this.

I see. You have the time to make rude, dismissive comments, you just don't have any time to defend them in the face of perfectly reasonable inquiry. I read you loud and clear!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:10:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 9:49:13 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
What could I have said? I don't have time to refute every libertarian on the internet. A theologian doesn't search Richard Dawkins on Youtube to explain Christianity to commenters. Either make a sane, detailed explanation of why Lincoln was wrong/a tyrant or don't be on this thread at all. I'm too tired for this.

Why make this OP at all if you don't plan on arguing the point?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:10:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 7:12:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:

Opinions =/= arguments.

Every argument is an opinion. As it is, you don't have one relevant to your own OP. In fact, you've said nothing as of yet that is relevant to your own post, and all you seem to be doing is trolling everyone posting here.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:13:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:43:48 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

My opinion is that Lincoln was "wrong" because he illegally waged a war against a population of duly represented people expressing very basic constitutional rights. I don't believe our founding fathers EVER meant to give federal government the power to violently force a voluntary union.

Going a bit deeper (as the pure political cynic that I am) I do not believe for one minute that the Civil War had anything to do with the plight of the black man. If Lincoln"s political party were reaping the same kind of profits and power from slavery (instead of getting beat over the head by it) that the opposition was, it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a war would have ever been fought in this country over it's practice.

Lincoln, more than any other single human, had the power and authority to either wage this war, or seek a peaceful alternative. His actions make it clear (to me at least) that he was far more concerned with power and profits than he ever was with constitutional rights or racial inequality.

Racial equality itself is about power distribution and profit, so nothing you've said here invalidates what Lincoln did.

That is (in a brief overview) why I think Lincoln was wrong.

For posterity's sake though, I would like to add two things;
1) I believe Lincoln was one of (if not the) most brilliant politicians I have ever studied.
2) Let's Go Hoooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:31:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 10:10:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 7:12:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:

Opinions =/= arguments.

Every argument is an opinion.

That is a false statement. They represent an opinion. But there's a difference between stating how much you hate atheists and explaining why it is that they should be hated.

As it is, you don't have one relevant to your own OP. In fact, you've said nothing as of yet that is relevant to your own post, and all you seem to be doing is trolling everyone posting here.

I asked for an explanation of why Lincoln was wrong. He gave me something that wasn't worth refuting.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:40:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 10:31:33 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:10:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 7:12:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:

Opinions =/= arguments.

Every argument is an opinion.

That is a false statement. They represent an opinion. But there's a difference between stating how much you hate atheists and explaining why it is that they should be hated.

You are attempting to argue that every opinion is an argument. That is not the assertion I am making.

It is clear that your original response was in response to an argument, one that you classified as an opinion. Of course it is...all arguments are opinions.

As it is, you don't have one relevant to your own OP. In fact, you've said nothing as of yet that is relevant to your own post, and all you seem to be doing is trolling everyone posting here.

I asked for an explanation of why Lincoln was wrong. He gave me something that wasn't worth refuting.

He gave you an explanation, and as of yet, you don't have a refutation. If you think refutation is not worth your time, then posting this OP was not worth your time.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:40:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The industrial revolution would have scrapped slavery anyway. The south defended it so rabidly because it was their way of life; if it became less expensive to take care of one piece of machinery than to buy and house dozens of slaves, then that way of life would no longer be optimal or necessary. At that point the strong abolitionist sentiment in the north would have won out. I don't think that secession would have necessarily been permanent either; I think that it would have prompted a much-needed overhaul of the powers of the federal government as a condition of the South peaceably rejoining while keeping an important check against it intact. When I look at Lincoln, I look at him in that light. He was a skilled politician who gambled, who attempted to force the South into rejoining the Union at gunpoint, thinking that it would be a quick conflict which would prevent him from having to negotiate with them. Instead he ignited a devastating war, and almost destroyed America as we know it. Lincoln and his generals were pretty incompetent militarily; he won through attrition, naval superiority, and superior resources with many more losses than were necessary. His scorched earth tactics devastated half of the country to the point of crippling it entirely. And, most importantly, if Antietam had turned out differently, there was a good chance that European powers would have involved themselves, making the schism much more permanent and cementing the influence of the Old World over the New. All in all I consider the war a stupid gamble by a brilliant politician who stepped out of his element.
"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 -
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:52:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 10:40:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:31:33 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:10:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 7:12:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:

Opinions =/= arguments.

Every argument is an opinion.

That is a false statement. They represent an opinion. But there's a difference between stating how much you hate atheists and explaining why it is that they should be hated.

You are attempting to argue that every opinion is an argument.

Please see a medical professional.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:53:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 10:40:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The industrial revolution would have scrapped slavery anyway. The south defended it so rabidly because it was their way of life; if it became less expensive to take care of one piece of machinery than to buy and house dozens of slaves, then that way of life would no longer be optimal or necessary. At that point the strong abolitionist sentiment in the north would have won out. I don't think that secession would have necessarily been permanent either; I think that it would have prompted a much-needed overhaul of the powers of the federal government as a condition of the South peaceably rejoining while keeping an important check against it intact. When I look at Lincoln, I look at him in that light. He was a skilled politician who gambled, who attempted to force the South into rejoining the Union at gunpoint, thinking that it would be a quick conflict which would prevent him from having to negotiate with them. Instead he ignited a devastating war, and almost destroyed America as we know it. Lincoln and his generals were pretty incompetent militarily; he won through attrition, naval superiority, and superior resources with many more losses than were necessary. His scorched earth tactics devastated half of the country to the point of crippling it entirely. And, most importantly, if Antietam had turned out differently, there was a good chance that European powers would have involved themselves, making the schism much more permanent and cementing the influence of the Old World over the New. All in all I consider the war a stupid gamble by a brilliant politician who stepped out of his element.

This is an argument; a reasonably thorough one. Thank you.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:54:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 10:52:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:40:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:31:33 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:10:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 7:12:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:

Opinions =/= arguments.

Every argument is an opinion.

That is a false statement. They represent an opinion. But there's a difference between stating how much you hate atheists and explaining why it is that they should be hated.

You are attempting to argue that every opinion is an argument.

Please see a medical professional.

This is an inappropriate personal attack and has been reported.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:58:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 10:53:27 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:40:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The industrial revolution would have scrapped slavery anyway. The south defended it so rabidly because it was their way of life; if it became less expensive to take care of one piece of machinery than to buy and house dozens of slaves, then that way of life would no longer be optimal or necessary. At that point the strong abolitionist sentiment in the north would have won out. I don't think that secession would have necessarily been permanent either; I think that it would have prompted a much-needed overhaul of the powers of the federal government as a condition of the South peaceably rejoining while keeping an important check against it intact. When I look at Lincoln, I look at him in that light. He was a skilled politician who gambled, who attempted to force the South into rejoining the Union at gunpoint, thinking that it would be a quick conflict which would prevent him from having to negotiate with them. Instead he ignited a devastating war, and almost destroyed America as we know it. Lincoln and his generals were pretty incompetent militarily; he won through attrition, naval superiority, and superior resources with many more losses than were necessary. His scorched earth tactics devastated half of the country to the point of crippling it entirely. And, most importantly, if Antietam had turned out differently, there was a good chance that European powers would have involved themselves, making the schism much more permanent and cementing the influence of the Old World over the New. All in all I consider the war a stupid gamble by a brilliant politician who stepped out of his element.

This is an argument; a reasonably thorough one. Thank you.

This argument is one you dismissed already prior. You are contradicting yourself:

At 3/28/2014 5:19:48 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Bullsh*t. Again the myth that slavery was dying a 'natural death.'
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:59:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

Technically Abraham Lincoln had no right to force the South to stay a part of the Union. The Southern States has every right to succeed from the Union if they wanted to.

Of course despite these rights, I still think Lincoln did the right thing.
Nolite Timere
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 11:36:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 10:13:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:43:48 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

My opinion is that Lincoln was "wrong" because he illegally waged a war against a population of duly represented people expressing very basic constitutional rights. I don't believe our founding fathers EVER meant to give federal government the power to violently force a voluntary union.

Going a bit deeper (as the pure political cynic that I am) I do not believe for one minute that the Civil War had anything to do with the plight of the black man. If Lincoln"s political party were reaping the same kind of profits and power from slavery (instead of getting beat over the head by it) that the opposition was, it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a war would have ever been fought in this country over it's practice.

Lincoln, more than any other single human, had the power and authority to either wage this war, or seek a peaceful alternative. His actions make it clear (to me at least) that he was far more concerned with power and profits than he ever was with constitutional rights or racial inequality.

Racial equality itself is about power distribution and profit, so nothing you've said here invalidates what Lincoln did.

My feeling is that if his actions in regards to secession were founded upon a need for racial equality then they would be considerably more justifiable. Since I believe his actions were in willful contempt of the constitution and originating more out of a desire to destroy a competitor than anything else, he doesn't get any credit from me for ending slavery.

In other words, the ends don't justify the means, particular when the means were never originally meant to effect that end for the right reasons in the first place.

That is (in a brief overview) why I think Lincoln was wrong.

For posterity's sake though, I would like to add two things;
1) I believe Lincoln was one of (if not the) most brilliant politicians I have ever studied.
2) Let's Go Hoooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:29:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 10:54:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:52:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:40:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:31:33 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:10:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 7:12:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:

Opinions =/= arguments.

Every argument is an opinion.

That is a false statement. They represent an opinion. But there's a difference between stating how much you hate atheists and explaining why it is that they should be hated.

You are attempting to argue that every opinion is an argument.

Please see a medical professional.

This is an inappropriate personal attack and has been reported.

You've been on this site how long?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:30:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 12:29:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:54:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:52:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:40:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:31:33 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:10:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 7:12:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:

Opinions =/= arguments.

Every argument is an opinion.

That is a false statement. They represent an opinion. But there's a difference between stating how much you hate atheists and explaining why it is that they should be hated.

You are attempting to argue that every opinion is an argument.

Please see a medical professional.

This is an inappropriate personal attack and has been reported.

You've been on this site how long?

Long enough. Also, this is another ad hominem.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:31:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 10:58:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:53:27 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:40:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The industrial revolution would have scrapped slavery anyway. The south defended it so rabidly because it was their way of life; if it became less expensive to take care of one piece of machinery than to buy and house dozens of slaves, then that way of life would no longer be optimal or necessary. At that point the strong abolitionist sentiment in the north would have won out. I don't think that secession would have necessarily been permanent either; I think that it would have prompted a much-needed overhaul of the powers of the federal government as a condition of the South peaceably rejoining while keeping an important check against it intact. When I look at Lincoln, I look at him in that light. He was a skilled politician who gambled, who attempted to force the South into rejoining the Union at gunpoint, thinking that it would be a quick conflict which would prevent him from having to negotiate with them. Instead he ignited a devastating war, and almost destroyed America as we know it. Lincoln and his generals were pretty incompetent militarily; he won through attrition, naval superiority, and superior resources with many more losses than were necessary. His scorched earth tactics devastated half of the country to the point of crippling it entirely. And, most importantly, if Antietam had turned out differently, there was a good chance that European powers would have involved themselves, making the schism much more permanent and cementing the influence of the Old World over the New. All in all I consider the war a stupid gamble by a brilliant politician who stepped out of his element.

This is an argument; a reasonably thorough one. Thank you.

This argument is one you dismissed already prior. You are contradicting yourself:

At 3/28/2014 5:19:48 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Bullsh*t. Again the myth that slavery was dying a 'natural death.'

I still don't buy it. But Skep at least presented an argument, rather than rambling on about how all the cool countries were abolishing it.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:33:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 11:36:10 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:13:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:43:48 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 2:31:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Explain it to me, O libertarians and lefties. Just a brief overview.

My opinion is that Lincoln was "wrong" because he illegally waged a war against a population of duly represented people expressing very basic constitutional rights. I don't believe our founding fathers EVER meant to give federal government the power to violently force a voluntary union.

Going a bit deeper (as the pure political cynic that I am) I do not believe for one minute that the Civil War had anything to do with the plight of the black man. If Lincoln"s political party were reaping the same kind of profits and power from slavery (instead of getting beat over the head by it) that the opposition was, it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a war would have ever been fought in this country over it's practice.

Lincoln, more than any other single human, had the power and authority to either wage this war, or seek a peaceful alternative. His actions make it clear (to me at least) that he was far more concerned with power and profits than he ever was with constitutional rights or racial inequality.

Racial equality itself is about power distribution and profit, so nothing you've said here invalidates what Lincoln did.

My feeling is that if his actions in regards to secession were founded upon a need for racial equality then they would be considerably more justifiable. Since I believe his actions were in willful contempt of the constitution and originating more out of a desire to destroy a competitor than anything else, he doesn't get any credit from me for ending slavery.

Hmmm...I think I've had this discussion with you before...what is the line between rebellion and secession? If secessionist tendencies are seen as rebellious tendencies, then Lincoln could have done anything to shut that down, and all of it would have been legally sanctioned.

In other words, the ends don't justify the means, particular when the means were never originally meant to effect that end for the right reasons in the first place.

That is (in a brief overview) why I think Lincoln was wrong.

For posterity's sake though, I would like to add two things;
1) I believe Lincoln was one of (if not the) most brilliant politicians I have ever studied.
2) Let's Go Hoooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:33:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 12:30:30 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2014 12:29:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:54:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:52:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:40:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:31:33 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:10:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 7:12:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 6:06:06 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:

Opinions =/= arguments.

Every argument is an opinion.

That is a false statement. They represent an opinion. But there's a difference between stating how much you hate atheists and explaining why it is that they should be hated.

You are attempting to argue that every opinion is an argument.

Please see a medical professional.

This is an inappropriate personal attack and has been reported.

You've been on this site how long?

Long enough. Also, this is another ad hominem.

No. It's just an insult. If you're preparing to make this a big deal, might this jog your memory?: http://www.debate.org...
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:38:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 12:31:20 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:58:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:53:27 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/28/2014 10:40:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The industrial revolution would have scrapped slavery anyway. The south defended it so rabidly because it was their way of life; if it became less expensive to take care of one piece of machinery than to buy and house dozens of slaves, then that way of life would no longer be optimal or necessary. At that point the strong abolitionist sentiment in the north would have won out. I don't think that secession would have necessarily been permanent either; I think that it would have prompted a much-needed overhaul of the powers of the federal government as a condition of the South peaceably rejoining while keeping an important check against it intact. When I look at Lincoln, I look at him in that light. He was a skilled politician who gambled, who attempted to force the South into rejoining the Union at gunpoint, thinking that it would be a quick conflict which would prevent him from having to negotiate with them. Instead he ignited a devastating war, and almost destroyed America as we know it. Lincoln and his generals were pretty incompetent militarily; he won through attrition, naval superiority, and superior resources with many more losses than were necessary. His scorched earth tactics devastated half of the country to the point of crippling it entirely. And, most importantly, if Antietam had turned out differently, there was a good chance that European powers would have involved themselves, making the schism much more permanent and cementing the influence of the Old World over the New. All in all I consider the war a stupid gamble by a brilliant politician who stepped out of his element.

This is an argument; a reasonably thorough one. Thank you.

This argument is one you dismissed already prior. You are contradicting yourself:

At 3/28/2014 5:19:48 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Bullsh*t. Again the myth that slavery was dying a 'natural death.'

I still don't buy it. But Skep at least presented an argument, rather than rambling on about how all the cool countries were abolishing it.

Skep's argument was more or less almost the same as jnedward's. I'm also fairly certain that the South fired the first shot, THEN Lincoln militarized. To say that Lincoln forced the South to do anything at gunpoint without recognizing the South not only doing the same, but instigating the conflict, is IMHO a morally inconsistent position.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 12:43:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course not. Like all American 'heroes' I accuse him of only one thing. Not being consistent enough, and not going far enough.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.