The Mythical Lincoln

[Goingonit]

Re: Fellow Canuck

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, I'm not. I'm implying that if you feel it necessary to commit multiple murder to gain your ends then you had better be realistically prepared to face the consequences, like the police dogging your steps.

OK. I must have misread your posts then.

This is starting to make more sense the more I look at it:

People generally realize that society is usually beneficial to them, and thus abide by it. Thus one goal of government is to make society an attractive enough proposition to people that they'll continue to live in it.

As espoused in Rousseau's 'the social contract', society is an agreement between a group of people.

Thus the law is not the supreme authority, it's merely one end of a contract you make with society.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ramo
It was in the article. It, like the other major faults of Lincoln's rule mentioned, seems to have been ignored so his detractors could more easily be labelled as right-wing nutjobs.

Ok...

but for the past two pages we have been discussing the legality/morality or lack thereof of the North invading the South and to a lesser extent, Lincoln's role in that. I don't think I've ever commented on Lincoln upholding habeus corpus or fair trials. In fact, I don't believe I've seen any of this discussion (even if it was in the article).

As said before, I don't think Lincoln was perfect or the best president. I recognize his many flaws. I'm in this argument for what it's become - about the civil war.

[KrazyHorse]

Yet another X-post

Bingo. Political philosophy, like a lot of other things, has gone downhill since the Enlightenment. The Social Contract is the best superstructure for moral discussions we've come up with, IMO.

If people would just stick to that framework we'd have a lot less confusion.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by uh Clem


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.

Actually, the plantation types were depleting the soil rapidly with their emphasis on single cropping huge tracts of cash crops. That's why a lot of Carolina slaveholders like the Hamptons and the Balls had properties out in Mississippi, and one of the reasons that the whole compromise of 1850 thang was unworkable - in their dark little hearts of hearts, the slaveowning class knew that slavery could not have been extended west of Texas, and it was fading from Virginia and many of the neutral border states.

Future industrial expansion, competing sources for cotton and tobacco in the European markets, and deepening liquidity crises in the south would have doomed slavery. Nothing to do with notions of altruism and benevolence towards one's fellow man - just a simple lesson that there were more efficient means of exploiting the labor of the disadvantaged class - something those Yankee mercantile types knew very well.

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?

There's not much substantial difference between slavery and sharecropping or tenant farming. And there's always people who stand to lose from changes in the social and economic order, hence the vehement opposition in the US to the formation of labor unions, and the general development of hostility between the white collar suburban middle class worker, and his blue collar brethren.

[orange]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
There's not much substantial difference between slavery and sharecropping or tenant farming.

I beg to differ. Economically no, but as far as freedom - they are as opposite as night and day.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: Imran

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Do you also agree with my second statement in that post?

To a certain degree, but it doesn't justify it.

Originally posted by Ramo
It was in the article. It, like the other major faults of Lincoln's rule mentioned, seems to have been ignored so his detractors could more easily be dismissed as right-wing nutjobs.

Bingo

[orange]

Re: Re: Imran

Originally posted by Ramo
It was in the article. It, like the other major faults of Lincoln's rule mentioned, seems to have been ignored so his detractors could more easily be dismissed as right-wing nutjobs.

Bingo

Maybe so, but you're not hearing that from me. So what's with...

Well duh... but don't say one is right and the other wrong, as it seems orange is doing.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Imran

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


To a certain degree, but it doesn't justify it

I don't think it does either.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
All of this is really funny, because as I recall the South fired the first shot. Lincoln didn't have to rally the remaining loyal states to the cause of saving the Union, he could have just called for revenge. In any case there is nothing in the Constitution that denies the United States the right to wage war against an aggressor.

Actually, the first shots were fired by Union troops at Fort Barrancas, Florida, January 8, 1861, when Buchanan was still President.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
That's odd, because most of them were built by the federal government. If they were state forts what were Federal troops doing in them?

They were built by the Federal government, generally on state lands (it was not common practice to deed the lands from the state to the United States at the time) Many of these forts were in fact unmanned, except for periodic maintenance and quartermaster duties, and there was no strict understanding that in event of foreign war, for example, that state militia units would not also man them - in fact, the United States as a whole had more coastal forts in existence (regardless of "ownership" status)than it had the serving personnel to man, even if every clerk and footsoldier in Federal service was turned into an instant coastal artillerist.

The Federal authority for military garrisons was not to control the states, but strictly for the Constitutional purposes of mutual protection.

[Berzerker]

Clem -

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?

The same evidence for it's end in Europe and the North. In that quote you took I explained why it would have died out quickly, and without such a bloody war and a century of Jim Crow.

In fact, they sound like Marxists talking about the ultimate "withering away of the state." Yeah, right.

Marx's "withering away of the state" has rarely if ever become a reality since most people want "government" taking care of them to an extent, slavery was abolished in many places without bloody wars.

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.

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.

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.

True, a reaction to the abolitionist movement.

There were jurisdictions where even advocating emancipation or receiving abolitionist publications through the mail were illegal (so much for freedom of speech).

Laws voted in by the ruling elite, laws doomed by time.

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.

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

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

Nope. Which is kind of the point. Lincoln and those other "busybodies" sent other people to die. And the reason there are "slaves" growing cocoa is because it is illegal, think about it.

Snowfire -

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

I didn't realize I was trying to make rationalizations in support of the CSA. This thread was about Lincoln, not the CSA. And what better reason to oppose Lincoln and his war than the slaughter of 600,000 people? One can criticize Lincoln without endorsing slavery.

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.

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

Orange -

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.

He did, in the same post you quoted.

We forced the south to ratify for reentrance into the Union...nothing wrong with that

And that is the paradox. Claiming, as the North did, that the South never left the Union upon secession only to claim they needed to vote a certain way for re-admittance to the Union they never left is illogical.

I was just saying that the majority of it (at this time) was political opportunism. And I'm talking about politicians not your average Northerner.

You didn't say a majority would have refused to break bread with blacks, but that no one would.

The North had a moral right to support the overthrow of the south

Then you must believe that it is moral to force others to die for your desire to end slavery.

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?

Read the article. And would you have insisted that we prosecute each and every German, Italian, and Japanese soldier in "fair and open" trials, i.e., jury trials?

Dr Strangelove -

All of this is really funny, because as I recall the South fired the first shot. Lincoln didn't have to rally the remaining loyal states to the cause of saving the Union, he could have just called for revenge. In any case there is nothing in the Constitution that denies the United States the right to wage war against an aggressor.

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.

Krazyhorse -

It's south of here. Plus, Berzerker's a Libertarian, sufficient cause to simply ignore any opinions he forms.

Being a Libertarian is sufficient cause to ignore my own opinions? I don't ignore the opinions of others, I debate them, read the thread. If you mean Libertarians refuse to accept as valid the opinions of others, I don't see you accepting my opinions.

Of course there's a morality higher than law. It's simply that we agree to follow the law even when we disagree with it in non-fundamental respects.

While I agree that morality is higher than law, what law was Lincoln following? It sure wasn't the Constitution.

Imran -

It is ironic that most of the people defending Lincoln's actions in the civil war decry Bush's assault on civil liberties in the 'War on Terrorism'?

Nice insight.

DinoDoc -

I want my question answered

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!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by orange


I beg to differ. Economically no, but as far as freedom - they are as opposite as night and day.

The "freedom" to vote for the socioeconomic elite candidate of your choice.

The "freedom" to be required to work in a company town, buy food from a company store, and be paid not in cash, but in privately issued scrip only good at company establishments.

The "freedom" to have zero opportunity to ever break out of a generational cycle of grinding poverty and political and social powerlessness.

Etc.

That's why an undercurrent of class warfare became almost open by depths of the great depression.

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Actually, the first shots were fired by Union troops at Fort Barrancas, Florida, January 8, 1861, when Buchanan was still President.

Hmm...live and learn. See Krazyhorse, I just accepted someone's opinion

[orange]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Orange -

He did, in the same post you quoted.

and in the same token...

You didn't say a majority would have refused to break bread with blacks, but that no one would.

He gave one example. I spoke of majority. It was a sincere question.

I then retract my original statement (breaking bread). I didn't think it would be taken literally (especially with the 'thar' slur ). I've since apologized for the statement, and I'll be more careful about what I say.

...but I feel this is irrelevant now.

And that is the paradox. Claiming, as the North did, that the South never left the Union upon secession only to claim they needed to vote a certain way for re-admittance to the Union they never left is illogical.

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.

Then you must believe that it is moral to force others to die for your desire to end slavery.

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.

Read the article. And would you have insisted that we prosecute each and every German, Italian, and Japanese soldier in "fair and open" trials, i.e., jury trials?

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.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, the first shots were fired by Union troops at Fort Barrancas, Florida, January 8, 1861, when Buchanan was still President.



They were built by the Federal government, generally on state lands (it was not common practice to deed the lands from the state to the United States at the time) Many of these forts were in fact unmanned, except for periodic maintenance and quartermaster duties, and there was no strict understanding that in event of foreign war, for example, that state militia units would not also man them - in fact, the United States as a whole had more coastal forts in existence (regardless of "ownership" status)than it had the serving personnel to man, even if every clerk and footsoldier in Federal service was turned into an instant coastal artillerist.

The Federal authority for military garrisons was not to control the states, but strictly for the Constitutional purposes of mutual protection.

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 far as the coastal forts themselves, their construction was part of a 30+ year long national defense program solely funded by the Federal government. If the land was deeded to the US then it was US land wasn't it? I suppose that in a crisis there might have been some state militia deployed to the forts, but undoubtedly under Federal command. 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?

[Guynemer]

Berz--

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 ****.