The Mythical Lincoln

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Forcing the deaths of over 600,000 soldiers and an unspecified number of civilians, over an institution in a foreign nation, cannot EVER be moral, under ANY circumstances - I don't care if the institution is gambling, slavery, or killing Jews.

[mactbone]

Forcing the deaths of over 600,000 soldiers and an unspecified number of civilians

Now, that's odd... You mean that the US demanded that the South fight them? That the US killed every single one of those individuals and in fact, did not give them a choice?

BTW, supposedly an ancestor of mine paid someone to fight for him in the war. I guess this was perfectly legal back then, because of crops or whatever.

Look, the CSA, as such was never a country. Period. The US never saw it as a country. They were rebels. Any votes that occured after where Southern congressmen were "coerced" to vote are false. They voted. As such, they voted how they voted, and you can't claim after the fact you were coerced. It may have happened, but then, in Congress, many times they will make little deals. You vote my on this issue, I'll vote your way on this other issue.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


But then again, the USA never declared war on the CSA.

.

I'm a little hazy on this point, but armed forces of the Confederacy fired on and killed Union soldiers. Did the Confederacy declare war before opening fire?

[Ramo]

Lincoln wanted to insure the border states didn't secede, and had to pander to them for awhile. You can dislike his realism if you want.

Why didn't he vote for abolition in DC when the vote came up in Congress? Neither Maryland, nor the capitol, was in danger of secession at the time.

He certainly had a realistic outlook. He was a "good" politician. He always did, without hesitation, regardless of his personal morality, whatever was good for his career.

During his Presidency, losing a colony (the South) would have been extraordinarily bad for his career. So he did whatever he could to preserve Yankee imperialism.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Maybe I can explain DF's position.

You see, he believes in national sovereignity. You can do whatever you want in your own country, and no one else should interfere.

Except, of course, when an armed rebellion of traitors takes place in the United States. Sovereignity doesn't apply there. (And please, don't give me this "The CSA was a sovereign nation" crap. Were they regarded as a separate nation by anyone on Earth, other than in their own delusional minds?)

[David Floyd]

The US never declared war on the CSA because in the USA's view the CSA didn't exist! I know that YOU think it did, but not in the USA's view. If the USA had believed that the CSA was a "soverign and independent nation" than they simply would have declared war- Lincoln would have had the votes in Congress to do it, since most of the Southern Representatives were gone. In other words, you're decrying a paperwork issue that results from the fact your interpretation of the war is different than the country actually prosecuting it.

So a nation can only be sovereign if the US recognizes it as such?
So then I suppose Taiwan, for instance, isn't a nation?

As for your second claim (about never going to war), well, that's why it almost seems pointless to argue with you. There are so many different assumptions being made by your second statement that I don't hold that it's really not worth it to try and refute it.

Well, my main assumption is that forcing people to die for a political cause is immoral.

Mac

Now, that's odd... You mean that the US demanded that the South fight them? That the US killed every single one of those individuals and in fact, did not give them a choice?

Oh, OK, so they were supposed to just roll over when large US armies invaded Virginia, Tennessee, etc., eh?

Look, the CSA, as such was never a country. Period. The US never saw it as a country. They were rebels. Any votes that occured after where Southern congressmen were "coerced" to vote are false. They voted. As such, they voted how they voted, and you can't claim after the fact you were coerced. It may have happened, but then, in Congress, many times they will make little deals. You vote my on this issue, I'll vote your way on this other issue.

Sovereignty is not based on the US recognizing your nation. The South had a legal right to secede, then an obvious right to form a nation after the secession.
And coercion is different from deal making, I hope you can see that.
Otherwise, I'll put a gun to your head, demand all your money, and then you won't be able to come after me in court later, because after all you made a deal.

Dr Strangelove,

I'm a little hazy on this point, but armed forces of the Confederacy fired on and killed Union soldiers. Did the Confederacy declare war before opening fire?

If we assume Ft Sumter as the traditional starting point of the war, then the only US soldier who died was, IIRC, from his own cannon misfiring.

If you're talking about 1st Manassas, I couldn't tell you who fired first, but the US was obviously the aggressor.

Guy,

Except, of course, when an armed rebellion of traitors takes place in the United States. Sovereignity doesn't apply there. (And please, don't give me this "The CSA was a sovereign nation" crap. Were they regarded as a separate nation by anyone on Earth, other than in their own delusional minds?)

*sigh*
It doesn't matter who recognized them as sovereign, it matters that they had a legal right to secede, and then an obvious right to form a nation.

[Berzerker]

Orange -

CSA is a different case completely. Not only do I believe that slavery was wrong, but I also believe that their secession was illegal. It wasn't sending 600,000 people to die just to end slavery.

So prove it was illegal. Or is this something you've taken on faith?

Yes, now what is your point?

Can you quote him?

How many times now have I said that slavery was NOT the only issue, but certainly a contributing factor. I've never once claimed that slavery was the one and only reason the north went to war or that the south seceded.

Okay, I thought you did, maybe it was someone else.

By the way, Berzerker, lets see what Mississippi had to say on the matter, shall we?

As I have already said, if you are going to throw a war for others to fight, you give them a set of reasons you think will push their buttons. Rarely if ever have the powers that be told the truth about why they instructed others to wage their wars. Southern propagandists said it was about states "rights" and self-determination and used racism to promote their war just as Northern propagandists latched onto the slavery issue after using the preserving the union argument. I take it you did not read my links. Go look at them, S Carolina threatened to secede in the 1820's over high tariffs. And look at the link dealing with what Northern publications were saying about the ramifications of secession, they weren't talking about the immorality of slavery. Secession was a threat to the North's economy...

Snowfire -

Yes, this is exactly what you'd think if you forgot the history behind it. Lincoln wanted to insure the border states didn't secede, and had to pander to them for awhile. You can dislike his realism if you want. What annoys me is when people want it both ways- they're so strongly anti-slavery that they think that even holding back temporarily on announcing abolition as a war aim is immoral, bad, etc., but the CSA is great! Even though stopping abolition was an announced war aim of the country.

He threatened the border states with invasion if they seceded, hardly an act of appeasement to keep them from seceding. And don't give me that nonsense about a double standard of hating slavery while defending the South. I oppose what happened because 600,000 people died and another 600,000 were wounded. If you think it's moral to sacrifice all those people to end slavery, then we disagree, but don't accuse me of supporting the South and slavery.

At least Ramo hates both sides.

And just where did I defend slavery? Use a quote this time. My opposition to forcing you to go and die in the Sudan to end slavery is not support for slavery.

Strangelove - Try and figure out what should be obvious. I won't debate you anymore because of your obnoxious behavior, not because of your "effectiveness" at debating. You've made some really assinine claims in this thread and when they are refuted, you ignore the rebuttals and become nasty.

[faded glory]

Lincoln was killed by a pro-Slave radical, he went out on a limb to free the people, he said he would do it in every speech.



Lincolns attitude can be sumed up in one senctence:Our first Mission is to preserve the Union, oh and by the way ; we will solve that slave problem once and for all


Revionists are both RIGHT and WRONG. It doesnt matter it wasnt his main goal, but what matter is, he did it. He gave his life for it.


End of story, case closed.

[DinoDoc]

What if time.

What if SC hadn't backed down when it did and Jackson was forced to "invade" the state as Congress had given him the power to do? What do you think the results of that action would have been? Would the Civil War had happened at all?

[David Floyd]

Hmmm...if the Civil War had happened earlier I'm inclined to think that the South would have won.

Cotton would definitely have been more of an influence on Britain 40 years earlier, as would the memory of the very recent War of 1812, IMO.

[KrazyHorse]

Abolitionist sentiment in other countries would also have played less of a part.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Hmmm...if the Civil War had happened earlier I'm inclined to think that the South would have won.

IIRC Popular sentiment was running against SC at the time which is part of the reason they backed down when they did, DF.

[Ramo]

Cotton would definitely have been more of an influence on Britain 40 years earlier, as would the memory of the very recent War of 1812, IMO.

You're a decade off...

What if SC hadn't backed down when it did and Jackson was forced to "invade" the state as Congress had given him the power to do? What do you think the results of that action would have been? Would the Civil War had happened at all?

Absolutely. In fact, it would've happened right then. As for the outcome, that's a bit more nebulous.

First of all, one must keep in mind that during the Civil War, the North's main strength was in its industry and manpower. That was not as true in 1832 as in 1860. I don't have any numbers for you, but I'd bet that the South's population was reasonably close to that of the North's.

Another question would be, how much of the South would follow South Carolina's lead? There's good reason to believe that SC would find few allies. Consider, for instance, that Jackson was himself an advocate against protective tariffs (although the reason why the Tariff of Abominations was passed was largely Jackson's fault; his Congressional allies drafted the Tariff to trap Adams into either undermining the little Southern constituency he had left or pissing off his main constituency, industrial New England). Despite this fact, he wasn't ready to back off on the Tariff.

Another question, of course, is whether the European powers would want to intervene. After all, England, about a decade earlier, got through ending just about all of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. How well would the European abolitionists be able to ward off alliances with a slave-owning South?

Finally, keep in mind that an offensive war is a helluva lot harder to win than a defensive war.

So, keeping all this in mind, I'd bet on a Southern victory.

[SnowFire]

So a nation can only be sovereign if the US recognizes it as such? So then I suppose Taiwan, for instance, isn't a nation?

You completely and utterly miss the point. Drop the soverignity issue for a moment and go back to what was said before. You were complaining that the US didn't declare war. It's irrelevant; the US would have declared war if it believed it to mean anything. This is ultimately a paperwork issue you were complaining about.

Not recognizing the CSA's soverignity, that's a real issue. But not declaring war is a mere side-effect.

[mactbone]

DF, It's all a matter of perspective. If I declared myself a seperate nation, etc. yet had no international body or even another recognize me as such, I'd just be some crazy guy at best, and a traitor at worst. Now, the question is... did France an GB actually recognize the CSA as a seperate country, or did they do everything without acknowledging that?