This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Abraham Lincoln

RymRym
edited September 2008 in Politics
I would be quite alarmed at the prospect of electing another Abraham Lincoln, whose Presidency was not at all like how he is portrayed in what children are taught in schools. He suspended the right of habeus corpus. He conscripted the railroads and censored the telegraph lines. He imprisoned without trial some 30,000 Northern citizens who dared to voice their opposition to the ware. He shut down hundreds of Northern newspapers that printed editorials critical of his war policies, jailing the editors. He deported Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio for opposing Lincoln's income-tax proposal at a Democratic Party political rally. He used federal troops to intimidate civilians. And his 'crowning achievement' was actually a worthless screed that did nothing. Far from 'freeing the slaves', the Emancipation Proclamation specifically exempted those areas of the Confederacy that were under control of the Union armies, while allowing slavery to continue in the Northern states of Maryland, Kentucky, and in the District of Columbia itself -- it 'freed' slaves only in the parts of the Confederacy that Lincoln had no control over, making it a pointless declaration, issued as a propaganda ploy to deter England from supporting the Confederacy. And while the Northerners were willing to fight and die by the tens of thousands to preserve the Union, they were unwilling to fight to eliminate slavery; there were draft riots in New York City, and a crisis of desertion in the Union Army with some 200,000 soldiers deserting, professing to feel betrayed.
Discuss.
«1

Comments

  • I really have nothing to say other than that Lincoln was a douche.
  • James Buchanan As big a douche we want to say Lincoln was, James Buchanan was probably a bigger one.
  • edited September 2008
    He suspended the right of habeus corpus. He conscripted the railroads and censored the telegraph lines. He imprisoned without trial some 30,000 Northern citizens who dared to voice their opposition to the ware. He shut down hundreds of Northern newspapers that printed editorials critical of his war policies, jailing the editors. He deported Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio for opposing Lincoln's income-tax proposal at a Democratic Party political rally. He used federal troops to intimidate civilians.
    I am vehemently anti-authoritarian, and I am a strong supporter of civil rights and individual freedoms, but even I support and condone these steps Lincoln took to preserve the Union. Of course, any of these steps would have been tantamount to tyranny in any other situation. What must be realized is that Lincoln was faced with an ACTUAL national emergency. Baltimore was wavering in its support of the Union and it contained many Confederate sympathizers. If Lincoln had not shut down those newspapers and suspended habeas, it is likely that Maryland would have joined the Confederacy. If that had happened, there would have been little if any chance of winning.
    And his 'crowning achievement' was actually a worthless screed that did nothing. Far from 'freeing the slaves', the Emancipation Proclamation specifically exempted those areas of the Confederacy that were under control of the Union armies, while allowing slavery to continue in the Northern states of Maryland, Kentucky, and in the District of Columbia itself -- it 'freed' slaves only in the parts of the Confederacy that Lincoln had no control over, making it a pointless declaration, issued as a propaganda ploy to deter England from supporting the Confederacy.
    Due to the politics of the time, Lincoln would have probably been impeached if he did not exempt Northern states. As for freeing slaves in areas of the Confederacy that Lincoln did not control, this was a major point of the Proclamation: The Confederacy was NOT a legitimate nation. It was still part of the Union and, although in a state of rebellion, still under the legal jurisdiction of the Union. In issuing the Proclamation, Lincoln was telling other nations that they should not recognize the Confederacy because it was still part of the Union.

    The Proclamation not only kept other nations from recognizing the Confederacy, it gave the war a purpose that many people were more willing to support than a simple question of federalism.
    And while the Northerners were willing to fight and die by the tens of thousands to preserve the Union, they were unwilling to fight to eliminate slavery; there were draft riots in New York City, and a crisis of desertion in the Union Army with some 200,000 soldiers deserting, professing to feel betrayed.
    I hardly see where this can be Lincoln's fault.
    I really have nothing to say other than that Lincoln was a douche.
    You admit that you have nothing to say. That's probably because you have little, if any, actual knowledge of this subject. If you did, you would realize how foolish you sound.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • even I support and condone these steps Lincoln took to preserve the Union.
    "Preserving the union" was not worth the bloodshed. We killed far more people than the British ever did trying to keep us in their sphere.
    If Lincoln had not shut down those newspapers and suspended habeas, it is likely that Maryland would have joined the Confederacy. If that had happened, there would have been little if any chance of winning.
    Without the benefit of hindsight, I can say that I certainly wouldn't have supported the aggressive civil war.
    Due to the politics of the time, Lincoln would have probably been impeached if he did not exempt Northern states.
    So it was a political expedience.
    I hardly see where this can be Lincoln's fault.
    It was an unpopular and deadly war for which I see no worthy justification. Too many people died for political vanity and a unity that by and large was unsupported by the people forced at gunpoint into fighting for it.
  • Dude I read the alternate history if the South had succeeded (you know by Harry Turtledove who is apparently a slider). It was definitely worthwhile to defeat the South, I mean those death camps for black people and Featherton creating a nazi like freedom party in the south and the blitz on Ohio... Oh wait.... that was fiction.

    Yea, think about it without the south, we would have so many more liberal presidents!

    Honestly it's hard to say how I would feel about the Civil War in those times, while I'm generally anti-war I would also be extremely supportive of the abolitionist movement. (I realize that the Civil War was not fought over slavery per say)
  • Joe, you're saying that Lincoln's actions were justified because he had to preserve the union. You must then agree that Georgia's recent actions in South Ossetia were also justified? It's the same thing. Part of your country wants to leave and become its own country, or join another country.

    If you think there's a difference, I'd like to hear it.
  • Well there is a difference in that South Ossetia wants to part of the country you are not on good terms with, while the South just wanted to be it's own entity.
  • Well there is a difference in that South Ossetia wants to part of the country you are not on good terms with, while the South just wanted to be it's own entity.
    That doesn't make a difference. You are claiming sovereignty over people who do not want you to rule over them. What they do after they leave you is their own business. If they decide to do something really bad like genocide after they leave you, then you can invade them on those grounds.

    Lincoln should have let them go, then later invaded on the grounds that they were evil slavers. Then the civil war really would have been about slavery, and it wouldn't have been a civil war.
  • edited September 2008
    "Preserving the union" was not worth the bloodshed.
    That's your opinion. I would hazard a guess that most historians disagree.
    Without the benefit of hindsight, I can say that I certainly wouldn't have supported the aggressive civil war.
    How was it aggressive? Oh, I guess you mean the Confederate aggression when they fired on and took Fort Sumter after they had been warned not to take any action against it.
    So it was a political expedience.
    Actually, it had the force of law and it evolved into the Thirteenth Amendment.
    It was an unpopular and deadly war for which I see no worthy justification. Too many people died for political vanity and a unity that by and large was unsupported by the people forced at gunpoint into fighting for it.
    That's overstatement at best. The Confederates were the first to institute conscription. Most of the Union forces were volunteers. On the other hand, conscripts accounted for about a fourth or maybe even a third of the Confederate forces. Source.
    Lincoln should have let them go, then later invaded on the grounds that they were evil slavers. Then the civil war really would have been about slavery, and it wouldn't have been a civil war.
    How can that be more justified? You don't appear to have any appreciation of the times. If the Confederacy had won, or if it had simply been allowed to exist, there would have been absolutely no support and no justification to "invade on the grounds that they were evil slavers."
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • How can that be more justified? You don't appear to have any appreciation of the times. If the Confederacy had won, or if it had simply been allowed to exist, there would have been absolutelynosupport and no justification to "invade on the grounds that they were evil slavers."
    Why not? We can invade all sorts of countries in the world on the basis that they are up to no good. We've sent the military to the Balkans, Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places on the grounds that those countries were up to no good. Countries have a right to sovereignty, they don't have a right to violate their citizens civil rights. We should be in Darfur right now.

    If the people living in an area really and truly want to be their own country, or change countries, they should be allowed to do so. People who want to stay with the old country should be given an opportunity to move. If their new country is up to no good, they will be treated just as any other country that is up to no good. When you violate your citizens, you lose your sovereignty.
  • How can that be more justified? You don't appear to have any appreciation of the times. If the Confederacy had won, or if it had simply been allowed to exist, there would have been absolutelynosupport and no justification to "invade on the grounds that they were evil slavers."
    Why not? We can invade all sorts of countries in the world on the basis that they are up to no good. We've sent the military to the Balkans, Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places on the grounds that those countries were up to no good. Countries have a right to sovereignty, they don't have a right to violate their citizens civil rights. We should be in Darfur right now.
    As I said, you don't seem to appreciate the tenor of the times. The conflicts you mentioned were all recent and in keeping with the perceived U.S. role as policeman. There was no such perception at the time we're discussing. If you want to say that's wrong, that's outstanding, but you can't change the fact that it just wasn't in the cards for the U.S. to be invading other countries at that time.
    If the people living in an area really and truly want to be their own country, or change countries, they should be allowed to do so.
    Please read Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) for a discussion of why this is not so.
  • Wow, Scott. Way to get well outside of any statements I'd back you on... ^_~
  • edited September 2008
    Please readTexas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)for a discussion of why this is not so.
    Ok, I'm wrong, at least as far as the USA is concerned. Parts of other countries that want to secede might still have an argument, though.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • And your point is what, exactly? We are talking about the legality/morality of the American Civil War, not about the legality/morality for civil wars of other nations.
  • And your point is what, exactly? We are talking about the legality/morality of the American Civil War, not about the legality/morality for civil wars of other nations.
    Alright then. I'll agree that Lincoln didn't just have to let the South secede, because they weren't allowed to. However, I will fall back on a typical ends don't justify the means argument.
  • What if the ends are preventing thermonuclear war and the means are killing a million people?
  • What if the ends are preventing thermonuclear war and the means are killing a million people?
    Yawn. You're just asking the old question about a train coming that is going to hit either one or two people, and you control which track the train goes down.

    The real world is not some tightly structured ethical dilemma. In the real world, you can do anything. And you know what, even if the south wasn't allowed to leave from a legal perspective, maybe it would have been better to just let them go. A lot of people wouldn't have died in the civil war, that's for sure.
  • Fine. Spoilers:
    What if the ends are preventing thermonuclear war, and the means are summoning a monster from another dimension in New York city?
    /Spoilers
  • edited September 2008
    Fine. Spoilers:
    /Spoilers
    What do you think ;)
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited September 2008
    Fine. Spoiler
    Gozer or Thermonuclear Bombs, this is quite the conundrum.
    Post edited by Li_Akahi on
  • And you know what, even if the south wasn't allowed to leave from a legal perspective, maybe it would have been better to just let them go. A lot of people wouldn't have died in the civil war, that's for sure.
    You seem to think that the Confederacy would have lasted as a distinct entity and that relations would have quickly normalized. The reality, however, was that the Confederacy would have been nowhere near as cohesive as the Union. Each state had very specific idea about the way it wished to be governed, and the Confederate Constitution provided for a weak central government.

    If the Confederacy actually won, it is more likely than not that its constituent states or parts of states would have eventually seceded, like Kingdom of Jones in Mississippi. That's not exactly a recipe for legal or economic stability.
  • If the Confederacy actually won, it is more likely than not that its constituent states or parts of states would have eventually seceded, likeKingdom of Jonesin Mississippi. That's not exactly a recipe for legal or economic stability.
    That's their problem. If you want to break away, and it sucks, you get what you deserve.
  • edited September 2008
    If the Confederacy actually won, it is more likely than not that its constituent states or parts of states would have eventually seceded, likeKingdom of Jonesin Mississippi. That's not exactly a recipe for legal or economic stability.
    That's their problem. If you want to break away, and it sucks, you get what you deserve.
    What about the generations of people who have to suffer because there is no stable economy or legal system? Speaking of the economy, notice how the Confederate Constitution won't even allow the Congress to appropriate money to build roads within the States. Do you think that policy would be full of economic promise? How about relations with the Union? Would there be any way to have normal relations with a handful of states and bits of states that kept seceding from each other? Do you think there would be no violence between or within these seceding units? What about the West? Do you think there wouldn't be a war between, say, The Republic of Texas (which would have certainly seceded), the CSA, and the USA over who would get to exploit the West?

    It is tragic that so many died in the Civil War. I had family members die on both sides. The War ruined my family financially. However, it is better that the War was fought and that the Union was preserved than any alternative.
    [M]aybe it would have been better to just let them go. A lot of people wouldn't have died in the civil war, that's for sure.
    If the Confederacy actually won, it is more likely than not that its constituent states or parts of states would have eventually seceded, likeKingdom of Jonesin Mississippi. That's not exactly a recipe for legal or economic stability.
    That's their problem. If you want to break away, and it sucks, you get what you deserve.
    Isn't it disigenuous to argue on the one hand, that you're all concerned about the people who died, and on the other, that if they secede and starve, they get what they deserve?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • If the Confederacy actually won, it is more likely than not that its constituent states or parts of states would have eventually seceded, likeKingdom of Jonesin Mississippi. That's not exactly a recipe for legal or economic stability.
    That's their problem. If you want to break away, and it sucks, you get what you deserve.
    I think we would have been in just as bad a place if we just let them break way, the Europeon powers would have had a hayday playing off of both sides, further weaking both the North and the South. With a large arguement over border states and the like both sides probably would have been tense... Knowing instead of diplomaticly dealing with the situation the South decided to cut and run would have left a bad taste in the Union's mouth. I'm not saying this becasue I'm currently reading a book series regarding this situation, but it's not hard to see
    conflict between the two sides regardless of the situation. The South choose this route when they bowed out of a fair election... You can't have a democray where if one side loses they just walk away. Your country will cease to exist quickly if you allow this. blah blah blah.. gotta get back to work..
  • GeoGeo
    edited September 2008
    I really didn't know the truth about Lincoln until I read this thread. The result is that I feel horrible that; for the past 17 years of my life I have been celebrating a day in his honor, when he apparently had none at all and likewise doesn't deserve any. I just wonder how he got all the notoriety that he and where did it stem from?

    In other Lincoln related news, I've heard that Stephen Spielberg is going to or is already directing a biographical movie on Lincoln's life called "Lincoln". All that I know is that Liam Neeson is playing Lincoln, Sally Field is playing Mary Todd Lincoln, and that it is scheduled to be released sometime in 2010. All these facts lead up to one pivotal question: Which side of the story will Spielberg tell? I wonder if Spielberg will make this movie based on either the unpleasant and horrifying things Lincoln has done during his presidency or if he will make the movie based on the spoon fed facts we are given in school.
    Post edited by Geo on
  • I really didn't know the truth about Lincoln until I read this thread. The result is that I feel horrible that; for the past 17 years of my life I have been celebrating a day in his honor, when he apparently had none at all and likewise doesn't deserve any. I just wonder how he got all the notoriety that he and where did it stem from?
    If this thread alone caused you to change your mind, you must be pretty shallow.
  • edited September 2008
    I really didn't know the truth about Lincoln until I read this thread. The result is that I feel horrible that; for the past 17 years of my life I have been celebrating a day in his honor, when he apparently had none at all and likewise doesn't deserve any. I just wonder how he got all the notoriety that he and where did it stem from?

    In other Lincoln related news, I've heard that Stephen Spielberg is going to or is already directing a biographical movie on Lincoln's life called "Lincoln". All that I know is that Liam Neeson is playing Lincoln, Sally Field is playing Mary Todd Lincoln, and that it is scheduled to be released sometime in 2010. All these facts lead up to one pivotal question: Which side of the story will Spielberg tell? I wonder if Spielberg will make this movie based on either the unpleasant and horrifying things Lincoln has done during his presidency or if he will make the movie based on the spoon fed facts we are given in school.
    Don't take what is being said in this thread at face value, do your own research on the man, the times, and the decisions he made and come to your own conclusions.

    I think we would have been in just as bad a place if we just let them break way, the Europeon powers would have had a hayday playing off of both sides, further weaking both the North and the South.
    While playing the North and South off of each other would definitely be something for many of the nations to consider, it is doubtful that they would due to internal problems and the onset of Imperialism.
    With a large arguement over border states and the like both sides probably would have been tense... Knowing instead of diplomaticly dealing with the situation the South decided to cut and run would have left a bad taste in the Union's mouth.
    Of the four original border states, Missouri, Delaware, Kentucky, and Maryland, all of them voted against succession in 1861. Missouri and Kentucky, the two states where this decision was very much contested, remained in the Union solely due to force of arms. If the North had let the Southern states that had approved of succession go, they would have almost immediately went to war over these two states.

    While letting the South would have definitely left a bad taste in the mouth of many Northerns, it is very likely that they would have simply said "To hell with them, those filthy traitors" and went on with their lives.
    Post edited by Banta on
  • While letting the South would have definitely left a bad taste in the mouth of many Northerns, it is very likely that they would have simply said "To hell with them, those filthy traitors" and went on with their lives.
    just for fun name a country around this time period that successfully seceded from a part of another country and wasn't instantly at war with them....
  • GeoGeo
    edited September 2008

    If this thread alone caused you to change your mind, you must be pretty shallow. Must you always be this critical and antagonistic, Joe?! I don't pay that much attention to presidential history or politics that much, so this is all new to me. Instead of gauging somebody's intelligence or knowledge of a topic based on what they've typed, why not try experimenting with them by asking questions or ask them their opinions on any given issue.
    Post edited by Geo on
  • If this thread alone caused you to change your mind, you must be pretty shallow.
    Must you always be this critical and antagonistic, Joe?! I don't pay that much attention to presidential history or politics that much, so this is all new to me. Instead of gauging somebody's intelligence or knowledge of a topic based on what they've typed, why not try experimenting with them by asking questions or ask them their opinions on any given issue.
    He didn't gauge your intelligence. All he said was that you were easily swayed. Also, arent you giving your opinion when you post? What's wrong with judging intelligence based on a post? What else can you be judged by?
Sign In or Register to comment.