The Mythical Lincoln

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have, however, stated time and time again that I am not ignorant to Lincoln's flaws.

Could have fooled me.

[Ramo]

A right to a fair and open trial is something we should always strive to uphold. Which of Lincoln's actions is similar to depriving civil liberties?

I have, however, stated time and time again that I am not ignorant to Lincoln's flaws.

[orange]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I have, however, stated time and time again that I am not ignorant to Lincoln's flaws.

Could have fooled me.

What the hell are you basing this on Imran??

[orange]

Originally posted by Ramo

We weren't discussing that aspect of this thread at the time. We were talking about two totally different things.

[Ramo]

We weren't discussing that aspect of this thread at the time. We were talking about two totally different things.

What does that mean?

What two other totally different things were you talking about?

Imran said that some of the same people who're defending Lincoln criticized Shrub's security policies.

You responded by claiming that Lincoln did nothing "similar to depriving civil liberties."

What am I missing?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo, I'm simiarly confused.

I think they both did wrong, but in certain ways can be excused (in minor ways). A consistant view, I think.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Clem -

Exactly! Slavery did not have overwhelming support in the South, it was mainly a "vice" of the aristocracy. Had abolitionists moved South and voted with other opponents to end it, slavery would not have survived.
.

Those busybodies got alot of people killed. And slavery was not crucial to all southern states, only a few.


I'd rather be a slave with the chance to escape than condemn 600,000 people to their deaths for my freedom.


Dr Strangelove -

First, did you read the article? Lincoln did more than just rally the North, he imprisoned many for not jumping on board the bandwagon and used other dictatorial tactics to suppress his opposition. And his reaction is what pushed the other southern states into secession. As for firing the first shot, the Constitution did not empower Congress to maintain facilities in foreign countries or prevent states from seceding. Therefore, maintaining and supplying the fort was illegal. The South even offered to pay for those federal facilities, but Lincoln rejected their offer and the Constitution.


DinoDoc -

If you're talking about Sherman and the Lieber whatever, what is it? When southern armies invaded the border or northern states, they did not engage in total war. Sherman did!

Slavery was NOT about to die out! The last two years before the War were bumper years for the South. The South essentially controlled the world's cotton markets. Entrepreneurs in France and England had long dreamed of developing alterate sources in India and the Middle East, but as long as cotton from the US was relatively cheap and abundant none were willing to risk it. During the Civil War these men got a chance to expedite their plans, resulting in sources outside the US that were more than competitive with Southern cotton. This was the major cause of the south's inability to recover economically.

The majority of slave owning households owned only 2 or 3 slaves. About a third of a million southern households owned slaves. The white population of the south was 9 million. I'd guess that translated into between one and a half to two million households, so about one-fifth to one-sixth of all white southern families owned slaves. This segment of the population had plenty of relatives. Odds were that if you didn't own a slave some first or second order relative did. In a pinch you could probably borrow one. No, slavery wasn't going anywhere.

The US isn't empowered to own property in foreign countries? Wow, we'd better close our embassies! They're illegal! Golly, no wonder them Arab fellers is always trying to blow 'em up! They're just helping out!

Where in the article does it say that Lincoln began imprisoning his detractors prior to "the other Southern states" succeeding?

You'd rather just take your chances on escping slavery instead of other people risking their lives to destroy it? Well Gee! How big of you! Tell you what Berzerker, you can come back here and say that when you're Black! I mean that's just disgusting! I am so glad that the human race is not entirely made up of people like you.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ramo
What does that mean?

What two other totally different things were you talking about?

Imran said that some of the same people who're defending Lincoln criticized Shrub's security policies.

You responded by claiming that Lincoln did nothing "similar to depriving civil liberties."

What am I missing?

Ok, let me attempt to be perfectly clear...

David Floyd and I (among others) were discussing the morality/legality on the civil war. Imran jumped in with his comment, and I didn't know what it related to. I thought he was applying it to the morality/legality of the war, when he was talking about Lincoln. From there miscommunication snowballed was seems to be just a simple misundestanding. I didn't know how he was applying his point to the discussion at the time seeing as how the thread was on a different discussion. I understand Lincoln's flaws, and I am trying to tell you that I am not blind to them. I have stated this before in the thread.

Does that make more sense?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If you're talking about Sherman and the Lieber whatever, what is it? When southern armies invaded the border or northern states, they did not engage in total war. Sherman did!

The Lieber code was law of war under which the Union opperated under and governed the conduct the Union army during its prosecution of the war. Here's the text of the code.

[orange]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You'd rather just take your chances on escping slavery instead of other people risking their lives to destroy it? Well Gee! How big of you! Tell you what Berzerker, you can come back here and say that when you're Black! I mean that's just disgusting! I am so glad that the human race is not entirely made up of people like you.

What's worse, his example made it seem like 600,000 were dying for one slave, but this was not the case.

[Dr Strangelove]

Oh, and actually southern forces were known to conduct "total war" during some of their incursions into Union territory, particularily those in the western theater. Have you ever heard of Quantrel? Other expeditions into Missouri and Kentucky were also rather brutal and destructive.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The shots were fired by a garrison attempting to defend themselves and their post from seizure. Would you have me believe MtG that had you been in a similar situation, with an armed mob of so called state militia attempting to seize your post, you would have just surrendered your post?

As a lieutenant without orders, and with four forts to "defend" with a "garrison" of thirty-odd men, from a group of hothead civilians acting in what was a rather loud political protest, I would have avoided armed confrontation, in the absense of controlling orders to the contrary.

As far as the coastal forts themselves, their construction was part of a 30+ year long national defense program solely funded by the Federal government.

Yes, through some of those same tariffs the south hated so much. In fact one of the more prolific builders of these forts was a young engineering officer named Robert E. Lee

If the land was deeded to the US then it was US land wasn't it?

In general, it wasn't deeded to the US - there was no provision in the Constitution for the US to acquire lands from within the lands of a sovereign state without state consent. With later states which first started as US territories, the land issues tend much more strongly to weigh in favor of the Federal government. That is not the case with Fort Sumter, for example.

I suppose that in a crisis there might have been some state militia deployed to the forts, but undoubtedly under Federal command.

The majority would have had to have been state troops, or else the majority of forts not serviced (as was the case - the 30 year building program was a collosal waste) - and assuming the states and the Federal government agreed, there would be no problem with Federal command. However, the Privileges and Immunities Clause and other parts of the Constitution fully recognize both Federal and State sovereignty in many areas.

State militias units were the majority of units deployed by the United States in the Civil War. Are you saying that these troops weren't Federal troops?

Actually, they generally weren't militia for several reasons - the two biggest being the political patronage state governers could gain by handing out majorities and colonelcies to their friends, and the very questionable authority of Lincoln to nationalize the state militias under the circumstances following Ft. Sumter.

In general, only brigade and higher staffs were truly Federal troops - state governers still had say over regimental promotions, or promotions were often by election within the regiment, payment of bonuses and other enlistment issues were generally determined at the state level, and Federal troops had unit name distinctions that clarified their Federal status - the 1st and 2nd United States Sharpshooters, 1st US Artillery, United States Colored Troops, etc. All in all, it was a very convoluted and ineffiencient command structure, precisely because the US government had to pay close attention to the sensibilities (and remaining sense of sovereignty) of many states still in the Union.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Oh, and actually southern forces were known to conduct "total war" during some of their incursions into Union territory, particularily those in the western theater. Have you ever heard of Quantrel? Other expeditions into Missouri and Kentucky were also rather brutal and destructive.

That is entirely accurate. In fact, the conduct of war on both sides in the western theater was far more ruthless and brutal than was the norm for the east.

Outright murder and atrocities were committed by both sides.

[Berzerker]

Orange -

The same paradox exists if you claim they never left the union for re-admittance, and then claim that they were soveirgn nation to justify their secession.

I didn't say they never left the Union. I said they did, therefore they were a separate nation. The paradox exists with those who claim they never left but had to be re-admitted.

No, I did not say that. I said that it is morally acceptable for one nation to assist in the overthrow of a moral wrong such as slavery. I suppose this is more ends vs. means. Again, I do not support the draft...but that is not what we had been arguing about at the time.

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.

You're taking what I said out of context. At the time, we were not discussing Lincoln. I understand that the article mentions these things, but I have not commented on them. Therefore I did not understand what I was being accused of by Imran. I have, however, stated time and time again that I am not ignorant to Lincoln's flaws.

Okay, but I thought you asked for evidence that Lincoln had deprived people of their civil liberties because Imran pointed out that Bush was being criticized for allegedly doing the same thing by some Apolytoners. Not important...

What's worse, his example made it seem like 600,000 were dying for one slave, but this was not the case.

What's worse is you didn't read the question posed to me by Snowfire. Go back and read it before jumping into Strangelove's BS. If you guys would have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people for your freedom, the problem lies with you, not me.

Guynemer -

You're right; I overstepped myself. I apologize; it is no excuse, but I had a massive neuroscience exam this morning, and I was a but stressed out by it.

HOWEVER, I stand by my conviction that you are stunningly full of ****.

I still don't understand your objection to anything I posted. Why don't you explain why I am "stunningly full of ****". Kind of hard to defend oneself when a "critic" just calls you names...

Dr Strangelove -

Slavery was NOT about to die out! The last two years before the War were bumper years for the South. The South essentially controlled the world's cotton markets. Entrepreneurs in France and England had long dreamed of developing alterate sources in India and the Middle East, but as long as cotton from the US was relatively cheap and abundant none were willing to risk it. During the Civil War these men got a chance to expedite their plans, resulting in sources outside the US that were more than competitive with Southern cotton. This was the major cause of the south's inability to recover economically.

And I believe it would have died out thru pressure. The war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over tariffs. That's why it was a major Eastern seaboard port - Charleston - that led the way. If Lincoln did not react the way he did, only a few states would have seceded with the west remaining in the Union. With the addition of US territories as states, only a few slave states would have left the Union. That isolation and economic pressure would have spelled the end of slavery. But this is all irrelevant since neither of us really know, what we do know is that 600,000 people died, and that raises the question: is it moral to sacrifice other people to end slavery?

The majority of slave owning households owned only 2 or 3 slaves.

Which is why pressure would have been effective, most southerners either had no slaves or very few.

About a third of a million southern households owned slaves. The white population of the south was 9 million. I'd guess that translated into between one and a half to two million households, so about one-fifth to one-sixth of all white southern families owned slaves. This segment of the population had plenty of relatives. Odds were that if you didn't own a slave some first or second order relative did. In a pinch you could probably borrow one. No, slavery wasn't going anywhere.

I'm not sure how you went from 1/3 million households to 1 1/2-2 million households. The clear trend in the "west" was the abolition of slavery, and had it not been for Lincoln's policies, no states would have seceded. And if not for his reaction, only 4-6 states would have seceded.

The US isn't empowered to own property in foreign countries? Wow, we'd better close our embassies! They're illegal! Golly, no wonder them Arab fellers is always trying to blow 'em up! They're just helping out!

Did the US just go around the world putting embassies everywhere? No, those countries were empowered to allow us to have embassies, we weren't "empowered" to put them there. Sheesh, your sarcasm is misplaced and illogical.

Where in the article does it say that Lincoln began imprisoning his detractors prior to "the other Southern states" succeeding?

Who said he did this "prior" to the secession? Not me.

You'd rather just take your chances on escping slavery instead of other people risking their lives to destroy it? Well Gee! How big of you! Tell you what Berzerker, you can come back here and say that when you're Black! I mean that's just disgusting! I am so glad that the human race is not entirely made up of people like you.

Are you behaving snotty and dense for a reason? I didn't say I would not welcome others trying to free me, I said I would oppose requiring 600,000 people to die for my freedom. And since when does this have anything to do with being black? Slaves have come in all colors, and since I'm white, skin color is irrelevant. If you have a grudge, go vent somewhere else.

Oh, and actually southern forces were known to conduct "total war" during some of their incursions into Union territory, particularily those in the western theater. Have you ever heard of Quantrel? Other expeditions into Missouri and Kentucky were also rather brutal and destructive.

Read the thread, I already mentioned Quantrill. I said there were renegades in the west. I happen to live near where he went on a rampage. But the main CSA army(s) did not engage in this behavior when they had the chance, Sherman did. Whatever the South did after Sherman started waging total war has to be viewed in light of his conduct.



Dinodoc -

The Lieber code was law of war under which the Union opperated under and governed the conduct the Union army during its prosecution of the war. Here's the text of the code.

If Sherman's behavior was "legal", why ask if he violated the law? The Nazis committed acts classified as "war crimes", did the fact they committed them "legally" (in accordance with their laws) mean they weren't war crimes? Apparently the winner gets to define war crimes.

[orange]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Orange -
I didn't say they never left the Union. I said they did, therefore they were a separate nation. The paradox exists with those who claim they never left but had to be re-admitted.

Well, I can argue the legality/morality of the issue whethere you chose they were a soverign nation or not. If you want to say that the Union doesn't justify their claims because they say the south never left, but force them to be readmitted - fine, I'd agree that it doesn't make sense. But not that it was immoral/illegal.

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 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. I can argue about the legality and morality of the war from the north's prospective. The means that they went about it are an entirely different issue.

Okay, but I thought you asked for evidence that Lincoln had deprived people of their civil liberties because Imran pointed out that Bush was being criticized for allegedly doing the same thing by some Apolytoners. Not important...

Yes, I misunderstood what he was saying and he misunderstood what I was asking. It was just miscommunication, that's all.

What's worse is you didn't read the question posed to me by Snowfire. Go back and read it before jumping into Strangelove's BS. If you guys would have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people for your freedom, the problem lies with you, not me.

No I understand what you're saying. You're saying that as a black slave you wouldn't want to know that 600,000 people were being violently killed for your own freedom. However, the slaves are not responsible for this war and should not have blame forced on them. Some of them were fighting for their own freedom against many many difficulties, and if the north came along and supported them, they can hardly be blamed for the outcome. I say that if anyone should be blamed, it's the south for allowing slavery to exist. They allowed the anger to be built up among its people (slaves).