what's with all the Reagan Avatars?

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, it may have been necessary, but moral? Naw, Lincoln was a good politician. He knew when to be amoral when it was for his (and the country's) best interest.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by monolith94
"If using the Constitution as toilet paper is the way to be "one of the greatest moral leaders in history," the competition must not be that fierce."

In stark contrast to the present administration, right?

Anyway, the slave states were already violating the fundamental principle on which the nation was founded - the equality of man. To say that they could use the constitution to support their unamerican practices is to say that they can have their cake and eat it, too.

Actually, in antebellum America, Americans could not agree on whether the Constitution was proslavery or if it was inherently anti-slavery. So it was not absolutely certain for Americans on where the Constitution stood on slavery before the Civil War -- they couldn't establish such a consensus.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon
Of course mono is right.

And heroification being a subjective thing? Don't be stupid. There are public criteria for heroism, it's not just a preference like one's favourite flavour of icecream. One can like a person without believing them to be a hero.

Heroification is subjective -- for the Nazis during World War II, Adolf Hitler was their hero. Was Hitler a hero in the eyes of United States and its allies? I don't think so.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not the one stupid enough to nominate Lincoiln as "one of the greatest moral leaders in history," Aggie is. Furthermore, I'm not talking about that states that rose up in rebellion. I'm talking about his abuse of power in the Union states. Ex parte Merryman being an example of the least of them.

But one can admit to abuses of executive powers without villifying Lincoln.

[Sava]

I'm not the one stupid enough to nominate Lincoiln as "one of the greatest moral leaders in history," Aggie is. Furthermore, I'm not talking about that states that rose up in rebellion. I'm talking about his abuse of power in the Union states. Ex parte Merryman being an example of the least of them.

It's easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback when it's about 140 years after the fact, eh?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hell, they were doing it mere years after Lincoln and even DURING Lincoln. When do you think Ex Parte Merryman was?

[monolith94]

"Actually, in antebellum America, Americans could not agree on whether the Constitution was proslavery or if it was inherently anti-slavery. So it was not absolutely certain for Americans on where the Constitution stood on slavery before the Civil War -- they couldn't establish such a consensus."

You don't think that the antebellum South might have been slightly biased towards an interpretation which favored a pro-slavery constitution???

[MrFun]

I was not saying that there was no bias -- abolitionists were divided into reading the Constitution as either pro-slavery or anti-slavery and most white Southerners certainly wanted to claim that the Constitution supported slavery.

What I WAS saying is that you cannot ignore the fact that many antebellum Americans were talking about white people when talking about equality -- even if some of the original founding fathers might have thought they were providing a way for equality to eventually include everyone.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dude, the original Constitution had slaves count as 3/5ths of a person for representation. It was a pro-slavery document.

[MrFun]

Imran -- and I have read books by historians where even in antebellum years, Americans debated whether or not the Constitution was inherently pro-slavery or anti-slavery.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, I realize that. But I'm telling you, that I think it was a pro-slavery document, and had to have been in order to get the South to sign on.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, I realize that. But I'm telling you, that I think it was a pro-slavery document, and had to have been in order to get the South to sign on.

Ok -- I see your point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Man, this has probably been one of the most threadjacked threads in history .

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, I realize that. But I'm telling you, that I think it was a pro-slavery document, and had to have been in order to get the South to sign on.

Anything pro-slavery is immoral, since slavery is immoral. Ergo Lincoln's dalliances with some unconstitutional acts in defiance of a huge immorality were, indeed, moral acts.

[MrFun]

hmmm . . . . .


good statement, Boris