The Mythical Lincoln

[Berzerker]

Orange -

That's it, I've had enough of you twisting everything I say around. I was giving an example of how, even though I oppose the draft, I am not against what it has brought about in history in some cases.

No one compared the South to Nazi Germany, and certainly not me, so piss off.

Oh I see, when you twist what I said that's okay, but when I allegedly do this, you blow a fuse. Do you have examples of me "twisting" everything you say?

Here is what I said:

You said the North had the moral right to overthrow slavery in the South within the context of the historical reality that this was achieved by sacrificing 600,000 people.

To which you said:

To me this isn't about the draft. I disagree with the draft, but I am proud of the US entrance into World War II, and if that is liberating people from a moral evil, than so be it. I may not agree with the exact way the the north went about the war, or that the United States went about World War II, but I'm more than happy about the ends.

And my response:

Comparing the South to Nazi Germany ignores that the South did not attack or invade the North (and I don't consider Ft Sumter an attack) nor did it engage in genocide.

You did compare Nazi Germany to the South by asserting both were perpetrating moral evils worthy of invasion and the slaughter of many people.

That's fine, but they didn't exactly have a choice in the matter now did they?

No, why did you ask when I answered this question in the very next quote you took from my post? Here is what I said in the very next sentence:

I never blamed the slaves

Shall I now accuse you of twisting my words and get all bent out of shape?

Maybe so, and maybe not. The people on your side of the argument yell at us for trying to predict where the world would have been without the war, so please don't you do it either.

When did I yell at you for trying to predict what would have happened without the war? Only Strangelove "yelled"...

And I say Lincoln's actions resulted from slavery.

Which action did Lincoln take when he became President:

1) Abolishing slavery?
2) Imposing protectionist tariffs?

Answer? Imposing protectionist tariffs. Besides, requiring thousands to die to end slavery is immoral.

GePap -

I was just wondering: Do you have any evidence, primary sources from either north or south, secondary sources, hell, thirdhand sources in some nationally recognized textbook, a bazooka Joe comic, anything, to back any of the assetions you have made?

It is a known fact that Lincoln/Congress imposed high tariffs on trade with other nations.

Perhaps some quotes from famous jurists or philosophers to back you legalistic claims?

Did you read the opening article? If you guys are going to argue that secession and war to prevent it are constitutional, the burden of proof is on you guys. None of you have tried to support that position by citing the Constitution. So accusing me of not backing up what I say is a bit amusing to say the least.

Any quotes from economic historians to back up your claim?

Did you read the opening article?

I know I have a bias, but I also like evidence- and Strangelove has been kind enough to provide some. I was just wondering if you will ever get to that?...

I guess you didn't read the opening article.

Why don't you be more specific so I can respond to your specific complaints. Some of which I have posted are opinions, some are facts. The irony of your accusation that I didn't back anything up is that you made this accusation without anything to back it up. Think about that...

[Berzerker]

Snowfire -

From what I understand it, Ramo was pointing out that the Southern masters tried to redirect blame for their mismanagement to anti-slavery protesters. Much like people today say "Wait! It's not our fault! It's the evil commies/homosexuals/fundamentalist/whatever people!" This I agree with.

I'm not sure to what you are responding, but finding scapegoats is a common practice.

However, to say that the war was fought for different reasons... no, I've been through this already.

There were several reasons, but the South did not secede until Lincoln and the Congress made it clear tariffs were going up, not that slavery was about to be abolished. And the remaining southern states that did secede did so after seeing Lincoln's reaction.

Let's just say that while tariffs may have been a small part of it, an underlying factor, whatever, slavery was THE issue of the war, and thinking otherwise is nuts.

Then why do we have the proof - tariffs - while you guys can only cite the rhetoric of propagandists trying to motivate others before or after the war started?

If you think tariffs set the foundations, fine; I don't care about underlying reasons.

You seem to care if slavery was the underlying reason.

It might all have been a plot by the Martians using their mind control rays and the Civil War was REALLY fought to insure the Martian mines in Canada went undiscovered and the Martians knew that without a strong unified USA the Canadians would rapidly conquer the world.

You've discovered sarcasm, how nice.

The actual personalities involved in the war, from grunts to politicians, knew/thought at least to some degree the war was about slavery, and that's what is important, "real" causes in the background be darned.

Many wars are fought using the masses while the powers behind the scenes have other motives. Lincoln said preserving the Union was his goal, and he would have achieved this goal even if no slave was freed. While I know he was one of the propagandists, you'd think he of all people would have announced shortly after secession that abolition was his goal and not the preservation of the Union. Now, obviously there were many who saw the war as an opportunity to get rid of slavery, but that doesn't mean it was started and fought over slavery.

[orange]

I still was not comparing the South to Nazi Germany. I was giving an example of a situation where, even though I did not support the draft to fight the war, I did support the outcome of the war and the morality/legality of the United States to enter such a war. If I say that I like ice cream and that I like Pizza, have I said that they taste the same?

Originally posted by Berzerker
When did I yell at you for trying to predict what would have happened without the war? Only Strangelove "yelled"...

Re-read the very quote you responded to. I did not accuse you of yelling at me.

Which action did Lincoln take when he became President:

1) Abolishing slavery?
2) Imposing protectionist tariffs?

Answer? Imposing protectionist tariffs. Besides, requiring thousands to die to end slavery is immoral.

I don't believe that the war was all about protective tariffs. So in my opinion, slavery in the south did fuel the North's war against the South, and was a cause for Lincoln to use federal troops, however aquired, to fight the south as well as using the government to pass laws outlawing slavery and granting rights to blacks.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker

There were several reasons, but the South did not secede until Lincoln and the Congress made it clear tariffs were going up, not that slavery was about to be abolished. And the remaining southern states that did secede did so after seeing Lincoln's reaction.

Could you provide some source for this information? It seems an odd assertion since secession began, with the secession of South Carolina, in December of 1860, months before Lincoln took office! How could Lincoln and (the new) Congress have made it clear that tarriffs were going up, when neither had yet taken office? The Repeblcan party did not even have the Congressional votes to force such bills past a determined opposition. If you would be so open minded as to read some of the dosuments I have linked in my earlier post you'd see that tarriffs were the least of reasons behind seccession.

Regarding our claim that the Confederate states offered to buy Federal property within their states before beginning seizures, consider that seizure of Federal property began within days of secession. They could not have reasonably offered to buy the properties one day and then seized them a day or two later. In fact, in some southern states seizure of federal property began even before the state had officially declared independence.

[Berzerker]

Orange -

I still was not comparing the South to Nazi Germany. I was giving an example of a situation where, even though I did not support the draft to fight the war, I did support the outcome of the war and the morality/legality of the United States to enter such a war. If I say that I like ice cream and that I like Pizza, have I said that they taste the same?

*sigh* If you bring Nazi Germany and the US effort to stop it into a discussion about the US effort to stop slavery in the South based on the assertion that these efforts were to stop evils, then obviously the evils in question require comparison. Would you argue for a US war in Afghanistan because Afghanis blew up a statue of Buddha? "Evils" need to be compared if we are going to "justify" wars to stop some of them while not doing the same to other evils, and you argued war was justified in both WWII and the Civil War. I know you weren't trying to equate the South with the Nazis, but you did try to justify war with the South by dragging WWII into the discussion. I was merely showing that comparisons need to be made if that justification is to stand on it's merits.

Re-read the very quote you responded to. I did not accuse you of yelling at me.

Am I not on "my side"? Who did I yell at? Who on "my side" yelled? Only Strangelove "yelled" when debating what would have happened without the war, and he's on "your side".

I don't believe that the war was all about protective tariffs. So in my opinion, slavery in the south did fuel the North's war against the South, and was a cause for Lincoln to use federal troops, however aquired, to fight the south as well as using the government to pass laws outlawing slavery and granting rights to blacks.

And "we" are not claiming slavery was not an issue, we (or at least I) are/am claiming tariffs were the primary reason for the initial secession of a few states.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Strangelove -

Previously to what? Permission to build an embassy? If we didn't have permission, then we weren't "empowered" to build and keep it. You argued we were empowered to build and keep embassies regardless of whether or not we had permission.



Name one. We've never gone to war because our embassy people were told to get out.



And before seceding, they offered to pay for them. But that still doesn't mean the Congress has the authority to keep and maintain US facilities in countries that don't want us there.



Permission may be withdrawn. Does this mean China must forever allow the US to maintain an embassy there? Of course not.



Which is the right of a sovereign nation that wants US personnel out of their country. And the CSA did ask, they even offered to buy the facilities.

Berzerker, I compared the coastal forts to embassies on the basis that both are property owned by a national government. IIRC we did send troops to China when the Boxers laid seige to our embassy. True the Boxers weren't technically an arm of the Chinese government, but there was considerable evidence that they acted with the pleasure of the Imperial goverment. The US has gone to war in Central and South America several times on the pretext of protecting the property of Americans from unlawful seizure by the goverments of those countries. Nicaragua and Guatamala most readily come to mind. American property was seized during the Russian revolution, the US sent troops. I can think of only two other instances where Americn property was seized by citizens or operatives of other counties without a resultant war: the seizure of the American embassy in Iran, and the seizure of American property in Cuba. There may be more.

The status of the Panama Canal was a sore spot in the relations between the US and the Republic of Panama over a period of several decades. More than on President promised that the US would fight any attempt by Panama to seize the canal. The US eventually gave up the canal willingly, but only after decades of negotiation. The South gave the US nowhere near that amount of time.

I'm not shouting Berzerker. Perhaps you have a headache. Lay off the drugs and you'll feel better.

[Ramo]

Could you provide some source for this information? It seems an odd assertion since secession began, with the secession of South Carolina, in December of 1860, months before Lincoln took office! How could Lincoln and (the new) Congress have made it clear that tarriffs were going up, when neither had yet taken office? The Repeblcan party did not even have the Congressional votes to force such bills past a determined opposition.

The aforementioned Morrill Tariff got through the House in 1860.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ramo


The aforementioned Morrill Tariff got through the House in 1860.

Gee, then Lincoln had nothing to do with it did he? Why did the southerners wait for the results of the election to secede?

[Ramo]

Ever hear of a veto?

[orange]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Orange -
*sigh* If you bring Nazi Germany and the US effort to stop it into a discussion about the US effort to stop slavery in the South based on the assertion that these efforts were to stop evils, then obviously the evils in question require comparison.

Not at all. I was merely showing that even though I might be against a certain action, it can be used for good. Just because I used World War II as an example doesn't mean that I was saying anything about the parallels of slavery and genocide, regardless of whether or not I feel those parallels exist.

I might be in favor of its outcome. I also didn't say Would you argue for a US war in Afghanistan because Afghanis blew up a statue of Buddha? "Evils" need to be compared if we are going to "justify" wars to stop some of them while not doing the same to other evils, and you argued war was justified in both WWII and the Civil War. I know you weren't trying to equate the South with the Nazis, but you did try to justify war with the South by dragging WWII into the discussion. I was merely showing that comparisons need to be made if that justification is to stand on it's merits.

Once again, that was not the point of mentioning World War II. I was speaking on the draft and how I may support the results of the draft and still not be in favor of the draft.

Not to compare World War II and the Civil War, but I feel that in both cases the United States had the moral and legal right to do what they did. However, I am not saying that Slavery in the South and genocide in Nazi Germany were equal evils, or that one was less evil than the other. I'm merely saying I support the outcome of both, and feel that both were justifiable both legally and morally.

Am I not on "my side"? Who did I yell at? Who on "my side" yelled?

For one, David Floyd. And again, I was not accusing you of doing the yelling, just those on your side of the argument.

And "we" are not claiming slavery was not an issue, we (or at least I) are/am claiming tariffs were the primary reason for the initial secession of a few states.

Good for you! I claim that it was an issue. I'm glad Dr. Strangelove brought up the last point about secession before Lincoln took office, I completely missed the obvious argument to make against the tarriff being the main/only issue in the South's rebellion.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ramo
Ever hear of a veto?

Not Lincoln's job at the time, was it?

[Ramo]

At what time? A veto is only relevant after it gets past both the House and Senate.

[orange]

ah ok, thought it passed in Dec. 1860. Sorry

Edit: Still doesn't change the fact that secession occured before Lincoln became President.

[Ramo]

What difference does that make?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ramo
Ever hear of a veto?

I just did a little homework. The Morrill Tarriff was passed by Congress in March of 1861. The Confederate States had already been formed! Did they go to war because they thought their old neighbor to the North had too high taxes.

Digging a little deeper I discovered that a hike in the tarriff rate had been proposed a few years earlier by some DEMOCRATIC members of Congress. Evidently President Buchanan had gotten the Federal government into a bit of a debt problem, something people in those days took much more seriously than we do today. The tarriff rates in 1860 were the lowest ever in US history up to that point. The 1861 Morrill Tarriff upped the rate to 1848 levels. The highest rates previously were enacted in 1828.