The Mythical Lincoln

[Berzerker]

Caesar -

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)

I don't buy it. An Inaugural Address doesn't reveal a President's true feelings, taking great delight in hearing stories of Sherman's slash and burn total war in the South speaks volumes about Lincoln (assuming Sherman wasn't lying). Maybe laughing at these stories was just another example of Lincoln's "political genius".

Many of the actions he took were necessary to ensure the survival of the Union, perhaps some were excessive, but nonetheless necessary.

The slaughter of several hundred thousand people in addition to all the other evils to "save the Union" raises the question: was the Union worth saving? No...

Lincoln cannot be blamed for the actions of soldiers during the war.

His reaction to Sherman's exploits indicates support of total war.

His 'trampling' of the constitution is again a part of his political genius.

That isn't a virtue, it's a disgrace. History has many "political geniuses" who were evil.

he was undoubtly one of the greatest American politicians

My definition of greatness differs from yours.

thus celebrating his birthday is not a bad thing, after all we do still remember the ides of march.

Ah, Caesar the Great? I don't remember the Ides of March as a lamentable occasion, but just another political assassination of a dictator by other wanna-be dictators.

[Guynemer]

Berz--

Frankly, I've seen people (including myself) try and try and try again to reason with you and David about this, and the mental image that springs to mind are Olympic sprinters running headlong into a 2-foot thick brick wall. So I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with you. I will, however, make richly-deserved humorous comments at your expense as a way to vent my frustration.

And yes, I do make those comments to the face of people when it has been earned. And yes, I realize that the article wasn't written by a Newsmaxer; but the fact that it is so popular there shows what kind of credibility it has. And for the record, no educated person in this country thinks Lincoln is a saint; he was deeply, deeply flawed. But he held the country together, and put down an armed rebellion by a bunch of traitors whose main goal was the subjugation of an entire race of people. And you ought to thank the heavens. If he had let the CSA go, it'd be an international laughingstock today.

[David Floyd]

If he had let the CSA go, it'd be an international laughingstock today.

Oh, that's a load of horse**** and you know it.
Fact is, you can't predict what the world would look like today, so don't even try.

[DinoDoc]

Since Sherman has been brought up in this thread, I feel confident in asking those accusing him of war crimes which part of the Lieber code the man broke.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, that's a load of horse**** and you know it.
Fact is, you can't predict what the world would look like today, so don't even try.

It would be nothing if it had continued the way it was...it had the slave power, but not the industry to defend itself. The South needed the North, and the North needed the South.

[orange]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

Ok, well most learned people know that Lincoln's sole purpose of the war was not to abolish slavery. However, most people are also learned enough not to dismiss it completely. It existed, his agenda was to abolish slavery whether or not there was secondary reasons for it. The north supported it, and we went to war.

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...

In this case, i feel it is. The federal government had soverignty to all the land, including the states. Slavery that was existing in its own country it had the right to abolish. Unfortunately for the south, this was done legally in their absence, and they have only theirselves to blame for it. They also have themselves to blame for some of the loss of life.

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.

First of all: I believe in voluntary military. That didn't exist at this time. At this time, you were drafted - you did what you were told. Now the draft is almost obsolete...but the South is just as immoral to draft men to defend their 'borders' against the very nation that they belong to. I don't believe the CSA was its own nation, it lacked soveirgnty.

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.

Again, no one is saying anything about Lincoln being a great man. Don't know why this is relevant. He ran the war as he saw it should be run. He made decisions, if they were wrong so be it, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his wartime morality.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
It existed, his agenda was to abolish slavery whether or not there was secondary reasons for it.

His sole agenda was to preserve the Union by whatever means necessary and if he could have done so and left the peculiar institution in place he would have done so.

[orange]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
His sole agenda was to preserve the Union by whatever means necessary and if he could have done so and left the peculiar institution in place he would have done so.

I understand this. However, after realizing that it was not feasible...that the south wanted out, he got the fuel for war by making it a war against slavery. Whether or not that was his true motive, I'm extremely greatful over the outcome.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd

**** you too.

Love the civilized debate, no? But I guess I did start it.

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.

What is legal is decided by who's in power- unless one seeks to base law on morality and values, one must base it on cohercion and force. Either way, you lose, since slavery was morally corrupt, and by force the north rewrote the law.

Those acts had the blessing of higher authority.

And so did bombing population centers in WW2. Modern war is a terrible thing. Also, you seem to leave out southern attrocities in border areas, where most of the attorcities happened, or andersonville, (I think this is right) the infamous prisoner of war camp.

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

Comparing attrocities is a simple way of ignoring reality. What the Nazis did can't be compared, in either motivation nor scale, to what the north did in the civil war.

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.

And who said that the Union viewed the secession as right? You define them as citizens of another state, the Union did not, and since the Union won, well, the Union is right, if we whish to use your morality free legalistic arguments.

[q]

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. [/QUOTE]

Nothing in the constitution can be unconstitutional, and according to the articles (yes, the constitution actually consists of parts other than the Bill of Rights) the constution can be ammended. 2/3 of the states felt that the 14th ammendment was good-so it is.
The state, as in Texas, is in no way a more valid or more knowledgable arbitrer of policy than the feds, or even counties. You base your argument on legal precepts that are dead- the very fact that the Confederacy had to move towards greater centralization as the war went on, and that the whole State's Right's ideology was a reason for their downfall shows that a nation like the US is today could not have survived as a sort of Loose confederation which you believe was what we where. The history of the US has been moving towards greater centralization of powers, just like with all other major state. If you don't like this general historical trend, well, I am sorry, but there is nowhere to go.

[DaShi]

Why is it that so many people forget this important document when arguing about slavery in the US? Especially, when it is truer to the values and beliefs of America than the Constitution.

[Berzerker]

Guynemer -

Frankly, I've seen people (including myself) try and try and try again to reason with you and David about this, and the mental image that springs to mind are Olympic sprinters running headlong into a 2-foot thick brick wall. So I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with you. I will, however, make richly-deserved humorous comments at your expense as a way to vent my frustration.

Yeah, launching ad hominems is how you define "reason" now? If it was so deserved, why didn't you back it up with anything remotely resembling proof? Shall I remind you what I said to Goingonit to motivate your insult?

So if someone is a racist, that's okay now? Hmmm...

That was my response to his argument that we should not judge a man by his beliefs (or deeds). Why you found that so upsetting is beyond me, must be a personal grudge.

And yes, I do make those comments to the face of people when it has been earned.

I don't think so, unless you post from the hospital. Be honest, when was the last time you insulted a stranger face to face? And don't give me your BS about "earned" insults, you made an ad hominem meaning you couldn't or wouldn't show anything wrong with the author's article, much less why I "earned" your insult by responding to Goingonit. Will you now tell us you have no problems with racists? That is the implication of your insult.

And yes, I realize that the article wasn't written by a Newsmaxer; but the fact that it is so popular there shows what kind of credibility it has.

How do you even know it's popular? Did you go there to read the thread? Nope, more BS. The thread had about 6 responses when I saw it and maybe half the people reacted negatively with comments like "get over it". And claiming the credibility of an author and his article now depends on who reads it is ludicrous.
You're being obnoxious for other reasons than the fact someone at Newsmax posted this article.

And for the record, no educated person in this country thinks Lincoln is a saint; he was deeply, deeply flawed. But he held the country together, and put down an armed rebellion by a bunch of traitors whose main goal was the subjugation of an entire race of people.

The South seceded, it didn't rebel. The latter requires that the government being dis-obeyed have the authority in the first place. The Constitution never gave Congress the authority to prevent secession nor prohibit the states from seceding. And the South was not subjugating an entire race of people.

And you ought to thank the heavens. If he had let the CSA go, it'd be an international laughingstock today.

No way in hell would I thank a man who sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. And I'm not sure why the CSA would be a laughing stock, they were well ahead of most of the world at the time. This is just another unsupported assertion.

GePap -

Southeners really have a stick up their *ss.

I'm not a southerner, what do you have stuck up yours? Oh yeah, prejudice...

Can slavery ever be justified, even with the 10th ammendment? NO

Nor can the slaughter of 600,000 men.

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

Aside from the fact your numbers are off, the US was not a democracy. I see you got your verbal skills from Guynemer.

As for 'attrocities' vs. Southerners- Many acts were by local commanders, plus modern all out war is bad, as Sherman (good man! ) said.

And approved of by Lincoln. The South did not behave this way when it invaded northern territory.

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.

Because secession was not prohibited by the Constitution.

The major point Southern boys never meantion is that the Feds are a citizens way against local tyranny.

Not before the Civil war, and not after for a ~century. And now the feds are in on the oppression, which is why some people are not very happy about some of the results of the 14th Amendment and Lincoln's federal power grab.

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.

And sometimes that far off authority is the oppressor. Learn what federal policies led to the Civil War.

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.

I doubt the descendants of those murdered by Lincoln feel gratitude.

Also, you seem to leave out southern attrocities in border areas, where most of the attorcities happened, or andersonville, (I think this is right) the infamous prisoner of war camp.

Southern atrocities were committed by renegades like Quantrill, not the Southern leadership. And as I already pointed out, Andersonville was Lincoln's fault.

Orange -

Ok, well most learned people know that Lincoln's sole purpose of the war was not to abolish slavery. However, most people are also learned enough not to dismiss it completely. It existed, his agenda was to abolish slavery whether or not there was secondary reasons for it. The north supported it, and we went to war.

When was this his agenda? It sure wasn't before secession.

In this case, i feel it is. The federal government had soverignty to all the land, including the states.

Wrong. The Congress had jurisdiction (and still does) over only a small area called Washington, D.C. and the territories. You need to cite the specific constitutional power allowing Congress to prevent secession or prohibiting the states from seceding.

Slavery that was existing in its own country it had the right to abolish. Unfortunately for the south, this was done legally in their absence, and they have only theirselves to blame for it. They also have themselves to blame for some of the loss of life.

Wrong. The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery came after the Civil War with the South back in the Union and Congress. And blaming the South for Lincoln's actions is illogical. It wasn't the South that imposed high tariffs on trade to punish themselves to profit Lincoln's cronies in the North.

First of all: I believe in voluntary military.

Irrelevant.

That didn't exist at this time.

There were volunteers, but as the war dragged on and they were depleted, the draft was instituted and met with riots in much of the North.

At this time, you were drafted - you did what you were told.

Hence my question about the immorality of forcing others to go and die to end slavery here or in the Sudan.

Don't know why this is relevant.

I said it was a "sidenote".

He ran the war as he saw it should be run. He made decisions, if they were wrong so be it, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his wartime morality.

I'm extremely greatful over the outcome

So the end justifies the means?

What you guys are ignoring is that slavery would have quickly died out in the South thru other mechanisms without sacrificing the lives of all those people.
The South did not secede en masse, only a few states seceded with S Carolina followed by the others after they saw Lincoln's response. Had they remained in the Union with the immediate inclusion of western teritories into the Union, the South and slavery would have been cut off. And then peaceful means could have been used to end slavery.

[uh Clem]

What you guys are ignoring is that slavery would have quickly died out in the South thru other mechanisms without sacrificing the lives of all those people.
The South did not secede en masse, only a few states seceded with S Carolina followed by the others after they saw Lincoln's response. Had they remained in the Union with the immediate inclusion of western teritories into the Union, the South and slavery would have been cut off. And then peaceful means could have been used to end slavery.

Libertarians and Confederate apologists frequently make the claim that "slavery would have quickly died out in the South," but what evidence is there for this? It sounds more like wishful thinking. In fact, they sound like Marxists talking about the ultimate "withering away of the state." Yeah, right.

At the time of American independence, the people who DID consider slavery a historical relic and an embarrassment that was ultimately doomed were Southern moderates like George Mason. This was a general consensus both north & south.

But by 1860, slavery was vastly more intractable and among its adherents, a far more fanatically held belief than had been the case in 1787. There were jurisdictions where even advocating emancipation or receiving abolitionist publications through the mail were illegal (so much for freedom of speech).

Slavery was not only an industry, it was the basis for the region's entire economy. There were thousands of people whose wealth & social standing were dependent on slavery, and it's unrealistic to expect that they simply would have drifted into some other field within a decade or two of 1860, if it just hadn't been for Abe and those other busybodies.

BTW, slavery hasn't died out today, most recently for instance, in the harvesting of cocoa. Who's going to free THESE slaves -- YOU?

[Ramo]

Many of the things he did, including the Emancipation Proclamation were to gain popular support.

Not at all. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily proclaimed to ward off foreign intervention. The UK and France were on the verge of intervening on the CSA' side. Only by making the war nominally against slavery, which European populations were adamant against, could Lincoln preserve the Union.

Libertarians and Confederate apologists frequently make the claim that "slavery would have quickly died out in the South," but what evidence is there for this?

Consider that in the late 18th century, New York City had one of the highest slave populations in the country (IIRC, it was something like second only to Charleston). A few decades later, graduated emancipation was enacted (all new children of slaves became free). Slavery, in this situation, was becoming unprofitable. The only reason why the same didn't happen to the South was because of an innovation called the cotton gin.

A very similar thing was occuring in 1860. Not only that, the South's primary cash crop, cotton, was about to be undermined by the new cotton plantations opening up in Egypt and India.

It existed, his agenda was to abolish slavery whether or not there was secondary reasons for it. The north supported it, and we went to war.

You're getting the reasons confused. Lincoln's agenda was, like other Whigs/Republicans, mercantilism; protective tariffs and subsidizing domestic industry. That is why the South seceded. Lincoln supported abolition only to insure that the South remained a Yankee colony.

And yes, I do make those comments to the face of people when it has been earned. And yes, I realize that the article wasn't written by a Newsmaxer; but the fact that it is so popular there shows what kind of credibility it has.

Look, I'm about as far from a Newsmaxer that you can get, and I see no factual errors in the article.

[SnowFire]

Hmph. Sorry DF & Berzerker, but MtG was better at coming up with smart stupid rationalizations for why the CSA wasn't that bad.

This was already brought up by orange, but it bears bringing up again, DF. You say that what is right doesn't matter; what is legal does. Where do you draw the line? I hope you don't always believe this to be true, because I can come up with more and more extreme situations to make this become utterly ridiculous. For starters, look at what orange said about the difficulty of changing the system and amending the Constitution when slaves couldn't vote. Imagine that your country is a monarchy with its Constitution saying "Whatever the king says is law. This can be changed only by royal deree from the king." Would you have politely waited for the king to abolish slavery? After all, taking up arms to change things would be illegal, right? (and even this gives the CSA more credit than I have to. I don't even theoretically have to argue that going to arms over slavery is okay, merely that going to arms against somebody who attacks your flag is reasonable)

You're also forgetting just what kind of pond scum the CSA had as a government. Alexander Stephens, the VP, immediately comes to mind, an ineffective bureaucrat and virulent racist (who talked about how the CSA was the first state to be founded on the great principle of the inequality of the white and Negro). This was not a noble group worth defending.

Ramo & Berzerker: Yes, yes, slavery might have gone away, and it might not have. Look at the rhetoric of the slavery radicals at the time. Lots of them wouldn't care if slavery was unprofitable, they'd still defend it to the death. I would say that it might have fallen apart by 1900... at the earliest. I ask if any of you would be willing to be a slave for 35 years, knowing that eventually, maybe, you might be free. Hell, 1 year.

And oh yes, one major reason for the development of the Egyptian cotton industry was... you guessed it... the interruption of Southern cotton. If the South had gone right on producing cotton, then, well, it's hard to say. But you certainly can't be sure.

I will now turn to the worst thing said in this thread.

Even those who supported abolition still did not plan to break bread with them thar negroes.

This is most unkind. Do your research. The leader of the Radical Republicans in the Senate comes to mind- I do believe that he requested (and was) buried in a black church's churchyard. Just because you've heard stories about some people don't assume everybody was a cold-blooded person who cared nothing about blacks.

[orange]

Originally posted by SnowFire
Hmph. Sorry DF & Berzerker, but MtG was better at coming up with smart stupid rationalizations for why the CSA wasn't that bad.

This was already brought up by orange, but it bears bringing up again, DF. You say that what is right doesn't matter; what is legal does. Where do you draw the line? I hope you don't always believe this to be true, because I can come up with more and more extreme situations to make this become utterly ridiculous. For starters, look at what orange said about the difficulty of changing the system and amending the Constitution when slaves couldn't vote. Imagine that your country is a monarchy with its Constitution saying "Whatever the king says is law. This can be changed only by royal deree from the king." Would you have politely waited for the king to abolish slavery? After all, taking up arms to change things would be illegal, right? (and even this gives the CSA more credit than I have to. I don't even theoretically have to argue that going to arms over slavery is okay, merely that going to arms against somebody who attacks your flag is reasonable)

You're also forgetting just what kind of pond scum the CSA had as a government. Alexander Stephens, the VP, immediately comes to mind, an ineffective bureaucrat and virulent racist (who talked about how the CSA was the first state to be founded on the great principle of the inequality of the white and Negro). This was not a noble group worth defending.

Ramo & Berzerker: Yes, yes, slavery might have gone away, and it might not have. Look at the rhetoric of the slavery radicals at the time. Lots of them wouldn't care if slavery was unprofitable, they'd still defend it to the death. I would say that it might have fallen apart by 1900... at the earliest. I ask if any of you would be willing to be a slave for 35 years, knowing that eventually, maybe, you might be free. Hell, 1 year.

And oh yes, one major reason for the development of the Egyptian cotton industry was... you guessed it... the interruption of Southern cotton. If the South had gone right on producing cotton, then, well, it's hard to say. But you certainly can't be sure.

Well said SnowFire!!

I will now turn to the worst thing said in this thread.

Even those who supported abolition still did not plan to break bread with them thar negroes.

This is most unkind. Do your research. The leader of the Radical Republicans in the Senate comes to mind- I do believe that he requested (and was) buried in a black church's churchyard. Just because you've heard stories about some people don't assume everybody was a cold-blooded person who cared nothing about blacks.

I'm sorry if this offended. What I was trying to convey was that even those who were in support of abolition were not all in support of equality of the races. I'm sure there were those who did support it, but my studies have led me to the conclusion that abolition in politics was political opportunism not a genuine love of the black man, and I believe that that is for the most part, correct. If you can show me otherwise, be my guest.