Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lincoln's aggressive war against the Confederates caused 625,000 deaths. After 2 years of battle, he issued the Emancipatin Proclamation correcting the terrible wrong of slavery. Is aggressive action causing so many deaths negated by the EP? If yes, compare freeing the Iraqis from slavery of Saddam and Bush causing 3500 deaths. My opinion, both Lincoln and Bush were wrong to attack and cause the damage they caused.
Nobody who studied American history past the 8th grade believes Lincoln started the Civil War to free the slaves. He stated this more than once to his friends and allies: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN. - Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object. - NYTimes.com
Lincoln's Civil War was entirely an attempt to crush State's Rights (the basis of U.S. Constitution) and make the Federal Government omnipotent. The slavery issue was a wonderful way to get northern liberals excited and vested in the war; they were "freeing" human beings from slavery, and what could be more exciting. Practically King Arthur and Camelot.
Of course, slavery was economically unviable in the new economy where employers could pay less than a living wage, and leave the public taxpayer to subsidize the remainder. Only in America was it used to start a Civil War of vast cost (in both lives and expense), and slavery quietly died out from the world as a viable workforce.
Incidentally, the vast cost of the Civil War served to further entrench the power of the Federal Government by paving the way for income tax--the most critical limit to federal power, and one strongly prohibited by the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and again in the 1890s to pay for the debts of the war, and finally got the 16th Amendment passed to permanently give the Federal Government the power to tax the income of the American citizen.
Lincoln made huge steps in the destruction of the original American nation by manipulating a naive liberal population, by crushing State's Rights and giving the Federal Government unlimited power and unlimited tax power. So was it worth murdering over 1/2 a million Americans? It was to him, and to all the Federal politicians now partying in Washington and telling us that the economy is recovering, really it is...
[quote=jackmccullough;28245384]Abraham Lincoln, our greatest President, was obligated to defend the United States against the attack by South Carolina forces at Fort Sumter, and was further obligated to defend the United States against an attemtped rebellion by the slave holding states.
The fact that he brought about the end of slavery and the fact that he preserved the Union are the two things that make him our greatest president.
I must say, though, that you're a bit off in your count. The total of our dead was almost 400,000, but I frankly don't care in the least how many of the enemy were killed.[/quote
Enemies. They were all Americans. Sick way of looking at Americans.
Lincoln's Civil War was entirely an attempt to crush State's Rights (the basis of U.S. Constitution) and make the Federal Government omnipotent. The slavery issue was a wonderful way to get northern liberals excited and vested in the war; they were "freeing" human beings from slavery, and what could be more exciting. Practically King Arthur and Camelot.
You started off so well but as usual couldn't resist jumping the shark.
The dead was over 600,000. Yes, it took 75 years from the formation of the US to free slaves at last. Was there another way, is the real question I think. One other thing that came out of the war was we are (for better or worse) a forced union.
For the worse due to the "forced" part. The South was, and still is a reluctant part of this nation. Most southerners are raised with a hatred and fear of the Fed Govt. Ask southern commentator Kathleen Parker. I would also venture to say most southerners, as Shelby Foote stated, are raised with a deep hatred of Abraham Lincoln. How in the hell can you share a country with people that hate a person most of the rest of the country idolizes as a national hero. He is on Mt Rushmore for christ sake.
It just makes no sense to me that we are still a forced union. I want nothing more than for them to get what they have wanted for the last two hundred or more years.
Very true. And the industrial north had a huge influx of wage slave labor coming from Europe. These immigrants were exploited literally to death in many cases. The factory owners didn't care because there were plenty more where they came from. Talk about your inhuman treatment.
Black slaves were valued more as they were bought with money. The white irish slaves were captured and no money paid for them. They were killed off as they were worth less .
Lincoln's aggressive war against the Confederates caused 625,000 deaths. After 2 years of battle, he issued the Emancipatin Proclamation correcting the terrible wrong of slavery. Is aggressive action causing so many deaths negated by the EP?
If yes, compare freeing the Iraqis from slavery of Saddam and Bush causing 3500 deaths.
My opinion, both Lincoln and Bush were wrong to attack and cause the damage they caused.
No! I think it is people like you with that type of attitude that do not belong in the nation. We can do without such ignorance.
No thanks. I'll stay in my region, and you stay in yours. I want no part of your Confederacy. But please do go ahead and keep hating Abraham Lincoln as the epitomy of everything that is wrong with the Fed Govt.
Sorry dude, but whites in the colonies or in the subsequent United States were not considered chattel slaves. You would be on better stead if you correctly pointed out that in the beginning both Europeans and Africans were being held as bonded servants, but it was with the establishment of the slave codes that the distinction between indentured servitude and black slavery was drawn.
That is not what I stated. Read again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Please spare me the ignorance that your momma taught you in whatever home school you attended.
You do realize that your response is to the detriment to your education? That is, even if I were wrong, you applied a fallacy of attack in order to avoid dealing with the content of the discussion. You are really smart, lets just drop the discussion and leave it to you with a "win", I mean, I can't compete with this level of intellectual prowess. You are too smart for me. /boggle
You actually didn't state much and certain not a cogent argument rebutting my statement.
So critical reading isn't something you are familiar with? Nope, gets in the way of a good political push.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Another non sequitur, my education having been completed some 35 years ago.
/sigh
The irony.
Too bad you don't continue your education. Then again, why should you? You know everything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
