The Mythical Lincoln

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's not a proper ends justifies the means argument.

An "end justifies the means" argument would be saying that you are going to do something bad in order to effect something good.

Killing someone about to walk into a school and bomb it is not bad by any sense of the word.

Say its a teacher and the bomb was planted on them. They don't know it's on them, but it's a choice between letting them go into school and kill lots of people or shooting them and having the bomb go off away from people. You can't warn the person, you only have the shot at them. That more to your liking?

The argument is pretty much the same.

Well I certainly don't think so.

You don't like how the Constitution is written? Fine, there's a method to change it.

Sorry, but the south didn't attempt to change the constitution either, they simply jumped ship. And while they were gone we were able to get abolition passed, so its their own damn faults. They could have stayed and prevented the laws from passing, but since they left they lost that right. You want to look at this as one soverign nation fighting another, then look at it as we invaded you, won the war, and you became part of our territory...so submit to our laws and rule

Yep, and it's only the most important document in American government.

And it's meant to be interpreted, not read at face value. It's not the supreme law of the land, it's the guidelines for our leaders to follow. It has some flexibility to it.

[Ramo]

I totally agree with the article (big surprise ).

The article fails to mention, BTW, that Lincoln used federal troops to massacre Amerindians and break strikes.

I might also add that Yankee tariffs, which lead to the impoverishment of poor farmers, black and white, helped to insure discord, rather than solidarity, between the two groups. So, de-facto slavery remained legal decades after its supposed abolition.

Regarding state's rights, it would be important to point out that the power to levy tariffs was an explicit power granted to the federal government in the Constitution. But that's a failing of the Constitution, just like allowing slavery and a number of other things were, and people, IMO, have every right to throw off these shackles.

[GePap]

Get over it!

Southeners really have a stick up their *ss.

Was Lincoln racist and did he not give a damn about the actual slaves? YES, just like the 90% of the northern Population.

Can slavery ever be justified, even with the 10th ammendment? NO. The legitimate base of power for any government must come for the people, this is the theory behind modern (as opposed to classical) democracy. Saying that 30-40-50% of the population is not 'human', that they are not classified as citizens, and then calling it democracy and demanding your rights are defended, well, its SH*T

As for 'attrocities' vs. Southerners- Many acts were by local commanders, plus modern all out war is bad, as Sherman (good man! ) said. Besides, why could we have not labelled every souther citizen a traitor, to which the constitutionally mandated punishment is death? The south wanted to rebel, the North said no. A war was fought, the north won, the south is back in the union.

The major point Southern boys never meantion is that the Feds are a citizens way against local tyranny. One is usually oppresed by local authorities, not some facelss one far away, yet citizens are able to ally themselves with the far away authority vs. local tyranny to gain their rights. The greatest blooming of Southern power and freedom, all came after the crushing of the Southern aristocracy by the Federal powers. Southeners should thank lincoln as much as the decendents of slaves. He freed you, so show some respect.

[David Floyd]

Say its a teacher and the bomb was planted on them. They don't know it's on them, but it's a choice between letting them go into school and kill lots of people or shooting them and having the bomb go off away from people. You can't warn the person, you only have the shot at them. That more to your liking?

Then in that scenario, I don't believe there would be a legal right to kill the teacher. Her family would have all kinds of legitimate wrongful death suits, probably even murder, in both civil and criminal court against the shooter, the shooter's agency (FBI probably), and all the way up the chain.

Well I certainly don't think so.

And I disagree

Sorry, but the south didn't attempt to change the constitution either, they simply jumped ship. And while they were gone we were able to get abolition passed, so its their own damn faults. They could have stayed and prevented the laws from passing, but since they left they lost that right. You want to look at this as one soverign nation fighting another, then look at it as we invaded you, won the war, and you became part of our territory...so submit to our laws and rule

The South didn't HAVE to change the Constitution to keep slavery, or to keep their States Rights - those things were already theirs. They chose, rather, to exercise their OTHER right, that of secession.

And it's meant to be interpreted, not read at face value. It's not the supreme law of the land, it's the guidelines for our leaders to follow. It has some flexibility to it.

Actually it damn well IS the Supreme Law of the Land.

Southeners really have a stick up their *ss.

**** you too.

Can slavery ever be justified, even with the 10th ammendment? NO. The legitimate base of power for any government must come for the people, this is the theory behind modern (as opposed to classical) democracy. Saying that 30-40-50% of the population is not 'human', that they are not classified as citizens, and then calling it democracy and demanding your rights are defended, well, its SH*T

I'm not talking what is morally right and morally wrong - hell if you are going to make "committing a moral wrong" a crime, then for damn sure YOU'D be going to jail, unless you've never done anything that could be called morally wrong. I certainly have.
No, the discussion is based on what was legal, not what was right.

As for 'attrocities' vs. Southerners- Many acts were by local commanders

Those acts had the blessing of higher authority.

, plus modern all out war is bad, as Sherman (good man! ) said.

So would that argument have worked at Nuremberg, I wonder?

Besides, why could we have not labelled every souther citizen a traitor, to which the constitutionally mandated punishment is death? The south wanted to rebel, the North said no. A war was fought, the north won, the south is back in the union.

The Confederate citizens BY DEFINITION were not traitors because they were not US citizens. Once you secede from a nation, you de facto renounce citizenship in that nation. It's only logical.
Further, the South didn't by any means rebel. The peaeably and through legal State conventions opted to leave the Union. The US committed the first aggressive acts.

The major point Southern boys never meantion is that the Feds are a citizens way against local tyranny. One is usually oppresed by local authorities, not some facelss one far away, yet citizens are able to ally themselves with the far away authority vs. local tyranny to gain their rights. The greatest blooming of Southern power and freedom, all came after the crushing of the Southern aristocracy by the Federal powers. Southeners should thank lincoln as much as the decendents of slaves. He freed you, so show some respect.

So we should thank the North for Reconstruction, should we? We should thank the North for the 14th Amendment which destroyed State Sovereignty, and that was illegally railroaded through, should we? I suppose we should also thank the North for forcing integration in our schools - sovereign State functions which the feds had no right to interfere in.
Bull****!
States' Rights have been trampled on ever since the Civil War, and I won't be thanking anyone for that.

[Berzerker]

Guynemer -

Planning to post an article detailing the failings of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington then, are you? Looking forward to it!

If I see one. I've already posted critiques of both these men, they aren't saints either.

Jackass.

How brave! Do you mouth off to people in person or do you save your obnoxious behavior for people well beyond arm's reach?

Frankly, as long as we're talking about relevance, anything posted at Newsmax, by yet another "Magnolia Myth" Southern sympathizer with an axe to grind, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to reality.

The article was posted at Newsmax, but the article was not written by a newsmaxer. You can't see the difference?
Maybe you should try refuting the author before telling us the article has no relevance to reality.

[Ramo]

The greatest blooming of Southern power and freedom, all came after the crushing of the Southern aristocracy by the Federal powers.

The Southern aristocracy was never crushed; only it (like other Southern interests) was excluded from the federal gov't. Rather than doing anything substancial, the feds opted to hand local power back to the feudal lords.

The Yankee leadership cared about little but their precious tariffs. The only attempt at real emancipation, when Sherman broke up the plantation land around the Atlantic and gave it to freedmen, was immediately countermanded by Johnson.

Southeners should thank lincoln as much as the decendents of slaves. He freed you, so show some respect.

Bull****. Lincoln supported abolition only due to pressures internal, and more importantly, external. Any other competent politician would've done the same in his situation.

The south wanted to rebel, the North said no.

Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution, so the North had no authority to say "no."

We should thank the North for the 14th Amendment which destroyed State Sovereignty, and that was illegally railroaded through, should we?

Absolutely! It's definitely one of the most important Amendments in the Constitution. Without it, the Bill of Rights wouldn't have applied to states.

I suppose we should also thank the North for forcing integration in our schools - sovereign State functions which the feds had no right to interfere in.

Forced public school integration had adaquete justification. If not from the 14th Amendment (and its "equal protection from states" clause), certainly from the court cases fleshing it out.

[Berzerker]

Goingonit -

I don't mind if they're a racist, as long as they don't try to do anything to anybody because of that.

Apparently you missed this from the article:

Garrison knew Lincoln well. He knew that Lincoln stated over and over again for his entire adult life that he did not believe in social or political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriage, supported the Illinois constitution’s prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, once defended in court a slaveowner seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended a runaway, and that he was a lifelong advocate of colonization – of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America – anywhere but in the U.S.

Sounds like Lincoln did quite a bit to impose his racism on others.

Orange -

Everyone in America was racist at the time! Even those who supported abolition still did not plan to break bread with them thar negroes.

Even the people running the Underground Railroad? How about the white people who were friends of Frederick Douglas? Maybe you can find a quote from Ben Franklin supporting his "racism"...

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So if someone is a racist, that's okay now? Hmmm...

I'm sure that's news to Frederick Douglas....

Lincoln was great for one reason; He ensured that the Confederate States of White America wouldn't seperate. Whether or not he was a abolitionist doesn't matter (he wasn't). He was great for preserving the Union. His stretching of the Constitution was tiny compared to what the Confederate government was doing to their own Constitution, they instituted drafts, rationing, etc. a full year before the Union did.

Strictly speaking, while the end result was a "blockade" of Southern ports, the executive order stated the "closing of ports within the territories and states currently in rebellion(I guess oklahoma had a bustling port)", making it a bit more legal.

Habeas Corpus? Yeah, that was bad. But I would have probaly done the same in a second, the country was falling apart, and he knew that all means were necessary to prevent the secession of Maryland.

On a side note, speaking as a Aggie, I'd like to point out that of the 11 or so states that seceded, only Texas had the grounds to do so. One thing many historians fail to bring up(except in Texas Histories) was Lincoln's telegraphing to Houston, effectively saying the Union would recognize a Independant Texas, but not one part of the CSA.


Stars and Stripes forever! Down with the CSA!!

[Berzerker]

For you guys who think Lincoln was a great man for forcing others to die to end slavery, would you feel Bush was great if he forced you to go off to the Sudan and die to end slavery there?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
For you guys who think Lincoln was a great man for forcing others to die to end slavery, would you feel Bush was great if he forced you to go off to the Sudan and die to end slavery there?

Last I checked, the vast majority of the Union troops were volunteers. Far more than the CSA (especially as the war dragged on).

As I'm in ROTC here at Texas A&M, that question is moot. Last I checked, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. As the Congress during the Civil War was decidly(sp) Radical, Lincoln had even less trouble.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then in that scenario, I don't believe there would be a legal right to kill the teacher. Her family would have all kinds of legitimate wrongful death suits, probably even murder, in both civil and criminal court against the shooter, the shooter's agency (FBI probably), and all the way up the chain.

Oh good, then I sincerely hope you don't ever have to make that choice. Kill one person save 100, or not do anything and let 'em all die. ****ing brilliant logic there DF

The South didn't HAVE to change the Constitution to keep slavery, or to keep their States Rights - those things were already theirs. They chose, rather, to exercise their OTHER right, that of secession.

And I disagree with this. It's ONE nation, just because a state says that they don't want to be a part of the union anymore doesn't mean that they will be guaranteed soveirgnty. If the Union says "sorry, you can't leave" and takes the state back by force, than it does not matter. You lost!

Actually it damn well IS the Supreme Law of the Land.

It cannot and should not be read exactly as it is written because times change, things change, and people change.

I'm not talking what is morally right and morally wrong - hell if you are going to make "committing a moral wrong" a crime, then for damn sure YOU'D be going to jail, unless you've never done anything that could be called morally wrong. I certainly have.
No, the discussion is based on what was legal, not what was right.

Well, personally, I'm glad that what's 'right' occured rather than what YOU think is legal. You defend the hypocritical south and call them heroes of democracy and popular soverignty, but any argument about this is a joke. You think government should be followed by the book, that change should only occur legally. Well if that's the case the slaves never would have been freed...they'd never be able to vote themselves into freedom! All people should be guaranteed the right to participate in their government through direct voting, and the Confederacy that you so support did NO SUCH THING!

The Confederate citizens BY DEFINITION were not traitors because they were not US citizens. Once you secede from a nation, you de facto renounce citizenship in that nation. It's only logical.

I secede from the United States. Therefore I am not subject to any of their laws.

Further, the South didn't by any means rebel. The peaeably and through legal State conventions opted to leave the Union. The US committed the first aggressive acts.

Depends on who you see as the legal owner of Ft. Sumter...the nation or the state.

So we should thank the North for Reconstruction, should we? We should thank the North for the 14th Amendment which destroyed State Sovereignty, and that was illegally railroaded through, should we? I suppose we should also thank the North for forcing integration in our schools - sovereign State functions which the feds had no right to interfere in.

Oh, but David...the 14th Amendment was enacted legally by the government The constitution WAS changed, and your beloved south wasn't present to vote on the issue...so you have THEM to blame.

States' Rights have been trampled on ever since the Civil War, and I won't be thanking anyone for that.

Only a shame they weren't squashed before the Civil War happened

[orange]

Originally posted by Berzerker
For you guys who think Lincoln was a great man for forcing others to die to end slavery, would you feel Bush was great if he forced you to go off to the Sudan and die to end slavery there?

You all seem to think it wasn't about Slavery anyway, so I don't see why you push this when it applies.

Besides, Sudan isn't our territory. The Confederacy was (whether or not you say they were a separate nation )

However, I would commend Bush if he saught a peaceful way to end slavery in Sudan through Diplomacy Slavery is wrong...

[Berzerker]

Orange -

You all seem to think it wasn't about Slavery anyway, so I don't see why you push this when it applies.

If you will notice, I said for those who think Lincoln was great for ending slavery, not for those of us who don't count that issue as the driving force behind Lincoln's actions.

Besides, Sudan isn't our territory. The Confederacy was (whether or not you say they were a separate nation )

The Confederacy was a separate nation (whether or not you say they were not a separate nation) Besides, the principle is whether or not a man has the right to force others to die to end slavery, not whether he has that right when the slavery is a few hundred miles away or a few thousand. The immorality of slavery is not limited by borders...

However, I would commend Bush if he saught a peaceful way to end slavery in Sudan through Diplomacy Slavery is wrong...

But not if he forced you to go and die to end slavery there? That was my question, not if Bush sought a peaceful, diplomatic end to slavery.

Another sidenote concerning Lincoln, I've read that the commander of the military prison at Andersonville housing federal POWs sent requests to Lincoln for food and aid because the blockade and war were depleting resources. Lincoln was even asked for prisoner exchanges to prevent the tragedy at Andersonville. He rejected all these requests and allowed Union soldiers to die there.

[Cairo_East]

I just learned today that the slave trade wan't formally abolished until 1912, when Mozambique stopped shipping slaves over to Reunion Island. Amazing, that's 25 later than I thought. I wonder about the Sudanese slavery system though: I wouldn't think it would be the plantation-style slavery that we associate with the South. Sudan does have a large cotton crop, though. Whether it is or not, it's a tragedy that this goes on.

[Caesar the Great]

Actually... I just wrote a paper on this matter.

Lincoln was certainly no abolitionist, he did believe slavery was morally wrong, but under no circumstances did he think blacks and whites were equal. Many of the things he did, including the Emancipation Proclamation were to gain popular support. Many of the actions he took were necessary to ensure the survival of the Union, perhaps some were excessive, but nonetheless necessary.

He was certainly not a humanitarian or a kind man, rather he was a politican, a brilliant politican. He was capable of manipulating his cabinet, his Congress and his country with ease. Better than anyone, he knew what to say, who to say it to, and when to say it. The Emancipation Proclomation is a prime example of this. He was able to abolish slavery without freeing a single slave. By doing so, the border states remained happy, the abolitionists remained happy, the troops were given a new cause, the south was demoralized and perhaps most importantly British support for the South was lost. It is for this that he should be given praise.

Although Lincoln did introduce several of the 'despotic' principles into the government because of the war, he did not believe they should be implemented during peace time. Capital was necessary to fight the war, this was simply a means of outproducing the South. Lincoln was clearly sympathetic to the South and wanted to heal the wounds of the nation, "...let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieveand cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." (Second Inaugural dress)

Several other points, Lincoln cannot be blamed for the actions of soldiers during the war. His 'trampling' of the constitution is again a part of his political genius. Yes, the sterotypes of Lincoln are incorrect, he was not an abolitionist, nor was he an exceptionally kind and humanitarian person, but he was undoubtly one of the greatest American politicians and thus celebrating his birthday is not a bad thing, after all we do still remember the ides of march.