Honoring a great president.

[curtsibling]

Challenge?

Someone is in a hostile mood today!

[Barinthus]

Nice new avatar, curtsibling.

Actually, Cajuns are the French from New Orleans. To be more precise, a Cajun is descended from orginial French settlers of Acadia before they got pushed out in the British efforts to anglicize the area. Many French settlers also moved to Maine where the French is second language not Spanish.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Akka
Lincoln had major impact on US, that's for sure.

Now, his only goal was to maintain the Union. I do recognize this as a merit. But I don't see how it makes him one of the "greatest" president.
As it was pointed out, he didn't care that much about slavery, and if it could keep the Union together, he would not have abolished it.

He seems to me as quite an opportunistic. I have some respect for him, but no more.

Many historians now seem to agree that Abraham Lincoln's views on race evolved or changed over a relatively short period of time, from the late 1850s up to the time of his assassination.

These historians argue that he had been racist in similar ways that many white men at that time period were, but at the same time, he believed that blacks should still be gauranteed very basic rights.

Then, later on, he began to change his views of blacks, when he tried to consider equal pay for black soldiers, and invited black leaders such as Frederick Douglas to the White House on equal terms as he received white guests.

[Barinthus]

Yep, MrFun. Like us all, Mr. Lincoln is simply a product of his own time. At least he was able to rise above the social attidues of his times and was willing to change.

[curtsibling]

@DataAeolus:

Thanks!

On topic:
Lincoln was ahead of the attitudes of his time.

While not a perfect saint, he rightly has became a great icon and figure of the USA's most defining era.

[David Floyd]

MrFun, etc.,

Regardless of the "challenges" that Lincoln faced, it remains a FACT that he was perfectly willing to violate the Constitution when it suited him, as well as ignore the concept of separation of powers. Whether or not he actually cared about individual rights, I'm sure, could be argued, but by suspending habeas corpus, among other things, he certainly didn't act like it.

Now, given the fact that you believe it was a violation of the Constitution for the southern States to secede, and given the fact that you think it was OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution, what makes it OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution but not OK for, say, Virginia?

[curtsibling]

@David Floyd:

One thing I always ask people who like to shoot down historical figures:

"Could you stand in his shoes?"

[David Floyd]

That's kinda silly.

So when you, or someone else, criticizes Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, a legitimate answer is "Could you stand in his shoes?"

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
MrFun, etc.,

Regardless of the "challenges" that Lincoln faced, it remains a FACT that he was perfectly willing to violate the Constitution when it suited him, as well as ignore the concept of separation of powers. Whether or not he actually cared about individual rights, I'm sure, could be argued, but by suspending habeas corpus, among other things, he certainly didn't act like it.

Now, given the fact that you believe it was a violation of the Constitution for the southern States to secede, and given the fact that you think it was OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution, what makes it OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution but not OK for, say, Virginia?

The federal government had a right to defend itself -- which included federal government property that existed in the seceding states. And it also included the right to preserve the United States, itself.

It also included the right to transport the army from one place, to the capital city. Baltimore, the city in Maryland thought that it would try to stop the federal government from protecting itself by blocking passage from Pennsylvania to Washington, DC.

And after Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Congress approved of his action.

[David Floyd]

The federal government had a right to defend itself

No one wanted a dissolution of the US federal government.

which included federal government property that existed in the seceding states.

That's fine, and my question would be, why did the US not try a non-violent solution?

And it also included the right to preserve the United States, itself.

The existence of the United States was never in doubt.

There was, and is, a strong 9th and 10th Amendment argument for secession. The United States ignored this argument, and simply said that secession was not legal. The problem is, neither Lincoln nor Congress had the power to decide legal questions in that way.

It also included the right to transport the army from one place, to the capital city. Baltimore, the city in Maryland thought that it would try to stop the federal government from protecting itself by blocking passage from Pennsylvania to Washington, DC.

Absolutely - assuming Maryland remains a part of the Union. If Maryland were to have seceded - which, barring federal interference, is at least a possibility - then the US would have no legal right to march an army across Maryland. The word for that would be invasion.

And after Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Congress approved of his action.

Lincoln didn't have the power to suspend habeas corpus.

But the bottom line is simply this - your argument essentially seems to rest on the fact that the federal government has a right to defend itself, and the existence of the United States. But the fact is, the existence of the CSA did not dissolve either the US or the federal government.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and you still haven't explained why you think it was OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution, but not for the state of Virginia, or Texas, or Alabama, or whichever.

[Barinthus]

David Floyd - Lincoln did try to resolve the matters peacefully. At the time of the eruption of the war, the government has been trying for at least 40 years. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was part of the efforts to solve the problem. Until that little incident broke out at Fort Sumter and who started it? CSA.

[David Floyd]

Until that little incident broke out at Fort Sumter and who started it? CSA.

First of all, there was no CSA at the time - it was South Carolina. Secondly, as MtG can, at length, discuss, the US attacked a fort in Florida prior to Sumter.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's kinda silly.

So when you, or someone else, criticizes Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, a legitimate answer is "Could you stand in his shoes?"

You put Lincoln in the same boat as Joe and Adolf?

I may as well put Jesus in the same boat as David Koresh and Chuck Manson.

[Barinthus]

David Floyd - that's new, can you least give me a source or perhaps name of that fort so I can look it up? Thanks!