Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Abraham Lincoln
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.
Comments
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. I hardly see where this can be Lincoln's fault. 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.
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)
If you think there's a difference, I'd like to hear it.
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.
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.
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.
What if the ends are preventing thermonuclear war, and the means are summoning a monster from another dimension in New York city?
/Spoilers
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.
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. 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?
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..
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.
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.
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.