12-02-2004 20:32									#91
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Challenge?

Someone is in a hostile mood today!

	12-02-2004 21:20									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Nice new avatar, curtsibling.

Actually, Cajuns are the French from New Orleans. To be more precise, a Cajun is descended from orginial French settlers of Acadia before they got pushed out in the British efforts to anglicize the area. Many French settlers also moved to Maine where the French is second language not Spanish.

	12-02-2004 21:36									#93
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Akka Lincoln had major impact on US, that's for sure. Now, his only goal was to maintain the Union. I do recognize this as a merit. But I don't see how it makes him one of the "greatest" president. As it was pointed out, he didn't care that much about slavery, and if it could keep the Union together, he would not have abolished it. He seems to me as quite an opportunistic. I have some respect for him, but no more.

Many historians now seem to agree that Abraham Lincoln's views on race evolved or changed over a relatively short period of time, from the late 1850s up to the time of his assassination.

These historians argue that he had been racist in similar ways that many white men at that time period were, but at the same time, he believed that blacks should still be gauranteed very basic rights.

Then, later on, he began to change his views of blacks, when he tried to consider equal pay for black soldiers, and invited black leaders such as Frederick Douglas to the White House on equal terms as he received white guests.

	12-02-2004 21:38									#94
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yep, MrFun. Like us all, Mr. Lincoln is simply a product of his own time. At least he was able to rise above the social attidues of his times and was willing to change.

	12-02-2004 22:50									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

@DataAeolus:

Thanks!

On topic:
Lincoln was ahead of the attitudes of his time.

While not a perfect saint, he rightly has became a great icon and figure of the USA's most defining era.

	13-02-2004 00:40									#96
	Got spare money?

MrFun, etc.,

Regardless of the "challenges" that Lincoln faced, it remains a FACT that he was perfectly willing to violate the Constitution when it suited him, as well as ignore the concept of separation of powers. Whether or not he actually cared about individual rights, I'm sure, could be argued, but by suspending habeas corpus, among other things, he certainly didn't act like it.

Now, given the fact that you believe it was a violation of the Constitution for the southern States to secede, and given the fact that you think it was OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution, what makes it OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution but not OK for, say, Virginia?

	13-02-2004 00:48									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

@David Floyd:

One thing I always ask people who like to shoot down historical figures:

"Could you stand in his shoes?"

	13-02-2004 00:53									#98
	Got spare money?

That's kinda silly.

So when you, or someone else, criticizes Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, a legitimate answer is "Could you stand in his shoes?"

	13-02-2004 00:55									#99
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd MrFun, etc., Regardless of the "challenges" that Lincoln faced, it remains a FACT that he was perfectly willing to violate the Constitution when it suited him, as well as ignore the concept of separation of powers. Whether or not he actually cared about individual rights, I'm sure, could be argued, but by suspending habeas corpus, among other things, he certainly didn't act like it. Now, given the fact that you believe it was a violation of the Constitution for the southern States to secede, and given the fact that you think it was OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution, what makes it OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution but not OK for, say, Virginia?

The federal government had a right to defend itself -- which included federal government property that existed in the seceding states. And it also included the right to preserve the United States, itself.

It also included the right to transport the army from one place, to the capital city. Baltimore, the city in Maryland thought that it would try to stop the federal government from protecting itself by blocking passage from Pennsylvania to Washington, DC.

And after Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Congress approved of his action.

	13-02-2004 01:04									#100
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: The federal government had a right to defend itself

No one wanted a dissolution of the US federal government.

quote: which included federal government property that existed in the seceding states.

That's fine, and my question would be, why did the US not try a non-violent solution?

quote: And it also included the right to preserve the United States, itself.

The existence of the United States was never in doubt.

There was, and is, a strong 9th and 10th Amendment argument for secession. The United States ignored this argument, and simply said that secession was not legal. The problem is, neither Lincoln nor Congress had the power to decide legal questions in that way.

quote: It also included the right to transport the army from one place, to the capital city. Baltimore, the city in Maryland thought that it would try to stop the federal government from protecting itself by blocking passage from Pennsylvania to Washington, DC.

Absolutely - assuming Maryland remains a part of the Union. If Maryland were to have seceded - which, barring federal interference, is at least a possibility - then the US would have no legal right to march an army across Maryland. The word for that would be invasion.

quote: And after Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Congress approved of his action.

Lincoln didn't have the power to suspend habeas corpus.

But the bottom line is simply this - your argument essentially seems to rest on the fact that the federal government has a right to defend itself, and the existence of the United States. But the fact is, the existence of the CSA did not dissolve either the US or the federal government.

	13-02-2004 01:05									#101
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Oh, and you still haven't explained why you think it was OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution, but not for the state of Virginia, or Texas, or Alabama, or whichever.

	13-02-2004 01:11									#102
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

David Floyd - Lincoln did try to resolve the matters peacefully. At the time of the eruption of the war, the government has been trying for at least 40 years. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was part of the efforts to solve the problem. Until that little incident broke out at Fort Sumter and who started it? CSA.

	13-02-2004 01:12									#103
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Until that little incident broke out at Fort Sumter and who started it? CSA.

First of all, there was no CSA at the time - it was South Carolina. Secondly, as MtG can, at length, discuss, the US attacked a fort in Florida prior to Sumter.

	13-02-2004 01:25									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd That's kinda silly. So when you, or someone else, criticizes Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, a legitimate answer is "Could you stand in his shoes?"

You put Lincoln in the same boat as Joe and Adolf?

I may as well put Jesus in the same boat as David Koresh and Chuck Manson.

	13-02-2004 01:25									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

David Floyd - that's new, can you least give me a source or perhaps name of that fort so I can look it up? Thanks!

	13-02-2004 01:36									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: You put Lincoln in the same boat as Joe and Adolf?

Yeah, that'd be silly, right? Silly, as in, silly like your response.

Come on. Do you really think that a valid response to my points is to ask if I could do their job? Come on! And if you consider that a valid response, why do you not consider it a valid response on my part to ask if YOU could do the job of Hitler or Stalin?

Data,

Unfortunately not. Ask MtG, I first heard it from him, but he seems to have extension documentation. In any case, the point should be irrelevant, because neither attack involved the CSA.

	13-02-2004 02:01									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd No one wanted a dissolution of the US federal government. The existence of the United States was never in doubt. But the bottom line is simply this - your argument essentially seems to rest on the fact that the federal government has a right to defend itself, and the existence of the United States. But the fact is, the existence of the CSA did not dissolve either the US or the federal government.

So I were to break your CD player into two pieces, your CD player would still work?

	13-02-2004 02:12									#108
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: So I were to break your CD player into two pieces, your CD player would still work?

You're changing the example, unless you believe the original 13 Colonies formed the United States in order to produce goods and services more efficiently.

And, by the way, the United States once existed with only 13 states. Surely you would not argue it was "broken" then, so why would you argue the US was "broken" when the total number of states still exceeded 13, in spite of some states seceding?

The plain fact is this - if Virginia secedes from the United States, Virginia is not destroying the United States. The US is built on certain principles, one of which is liberty, and another of which is limited federal government. One CERTAIN way to "break" the United States is to weaken or eliminate those two principles.

	13-02-2004 02:16									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd You're changing the example, unless you believe the original 13 Colonies formed the United States in order to produce goods and services more efficiently. And, by the way, the United States once existed with only 13 states. Surely you would not argue it was "broken" then, so why would you argue the US was "broken" when the total number of states still exceeded 13, in spite of some states seceding? The plain fact is this - if Virginia secedes from the United States, Virginia is not destroying the United States. The US is built on certain principles, one of which is liberty, and another of which is limited federal government. One CERTAIN way to "break" the United States is to weaken or eliminate those two principles.

Whenver any state can secede from the United States just because it disagrees with the majority rule position on a specific issue, it inherently threatens United States itself.

Secession in the spirit of minority rule over majority rule would, in the end, have destroyed the United States.

	13-02-2004 02:20									#110
	Increase Your PM Length

I take it your a "destroy the village to save it" kind of guy with the whitewash you like doing on Lincoln.

	13-02-2004 02:22									#111
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I take it your a "destroy the village to save it" kind of guy with the whitewash you like doing on Lincoln.

It's interesting how many creative ways others can distort one's position.

Where have I advocated for the destruction of the Southern states?

	13-02-2004 02:24									#112
	Full PM-box? Change here!

You seem to support Lincoln's shreading of various parts of the Constitution.

	13-02-2004 02:26									#113
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc You seem to support Lincoln's shreading of various parts of the Constitution.

You mean violating the Constitution by preserving majority rule over minority rule?

Or by declaring secession unjustified when states secede because they were angry with the results of a presidential election?

	13-02-2004 02:27									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

That's nice, MrFun, but other than stating your position, you haven't really proved anything.

As I recall, by the way, Lincoln didn't win a MAJORITY of the vote, nor did he even have enough support in some states to appear on the actual ballot in those states. A good chunk of the nation was essentially told by the plurality "If you don't like it, tough ****". And so they left.

But not all the eventual CSA states left. Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina - some of the most important states of the CSA in terms of manpower, economics, and industry/infrastructure, by the way - only left once the US government tried to raise an army to invade the states which had seceded. It appears that those four states didn't like the idea of invading other people, especially not for the mere reason that those people decided to leave the US.

And finally, you state the following:

quote: just because it disagrees with the majority rule position on a specific issue,

You're either talking about Lincoln's election, which was NOT done with a majority but rather with 39.9% of the vote (less, by the way, than GW Bush got), or slavery. If you mean slavery, then I would be interested in you pointing to a vote - any vote, any national survey, anything - conducted at the time indicating that 50+% wanted to abolish slavery.

	13-02-2004 02:30									#115
	Suffering from ads?

quote: You mean violating the Constitution by preserving majority rule over minority rule?

Interestingly enough, part of the whole structure of the Constitution is built around the concept that the majority can't do anything it likes.

quote: Or by declaring secession unjustified when states secede because they were angry with the results of a presidential election?

An election that did NOT elect a majority candidate, and, by the way, Lincoln didn't have the power to make a judicial ruling on secession anyway. The Supreme Court of the time could have, but that's probably not a place Lincoln wanted to go, not with Chief Justice Taney and the rest up there. Might also explain why Lincoln wanted to add a 10th Justice to the Court, too.

	13-02-2004 02:30									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd As I recall, by the way, Lincoln didn't win a MAJORITY of the vote, nor did he even have enough support in some states to appear on the actual ballot in those states. A good chunk of the nation was essentially told by the plurality "If you don't like it, tough ****". And so they left. But not all the eventual CSA states left. Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina - some of the most important states of the CSA in terms of manpower, economics, and industry/infrastructure, by the way - only left once the US government tried to raise an army to invade the states which had seceded. It appears that those four states didn't like the idea of invading other people, especially not for the mere reason that those people decided to leave the US. You're either talking about Lincoln's election, which was NOT done with a majority but rather with 39.9% of the vote (less, by the way, than GW Bush got), or slavery. If you mean slavery, then I would be interested in you pointing to a vote - any vote, any national survey, anything - conducted at the time indicating that 50+% wanted to abolish slavery.

The majority of the people in the Northern states obviously felt Abraham Lincoln was within his bounds due to the crisis of civil war, that they reelected him.

The states that seceded with Lincoln's call for troops were also unjustified. Just because the federal government wanted to defend its property in the seceded states, did not give justification for Virginia, and the others to secede.

	13-02-2004 02:34									#117
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

MrFun: why are you arguing with DF? its like arguing with a wall, only less likely to work and more painful.

	13-02-2004 02:40									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: The majority of the people in the Northern states obviously felt Abraham Lincoln was within his bounds due to the crisis of civil war, that they reelected him.

Oh, so the people who elected him the first time re-elected him? That's sorta like saying that George W. Bush is gonna win in Texas

Besides, look who Lincoln ran against - McClellan. If you put up an unsuccessful general against the incumbent President in the middle of the war in which the general was unsuccessful, I guarantee you he isn't going to win. But in 1864, by the way, Lincoln only received 55% of the vote. Not much of a landslide, I'd say.

quote: The states that seceded with Lincoln's call for troops were also unjustified. Just because the federal government wanted to defend its property in the seceded states, did not give justification for Virginia, and the others to secede.

If the federal government wanted to defend property, then the federal government could use federal troops, not try to make Virginia supply the troops. The property didn't belong to Virginia, and frankly Virginia didn't care about "federal property" any more than the federal government did. The "federal property" argument is a convenient excuse to mask the fact that Lincoln would have called for troops even if NO property was at stake.

	13-02-2004 02:58									#119
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Yeah, that'd be silly, right? Silly, as in, silly like your response.

There is always room for levity, but I was serious.

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Come on. Do you really think that a valid response to my points is to ask if I could do their job? Come on! And if you consider that a valid response, why do you not consider it a valid response on my part to ask if YOU could do the job of Hitler or Stalin?

I thought it was fair enough.

So, please indulge my question first.

Could you have handled the Civil war, with all it's attached racial strife, and still kept both Union and Constitution intact?

If Lincoln was such a flop, how would YOU have done things different?

That's the crux of my question.

	13-02-2004 03:01									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by MrFun another memorable quote: "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." Lincoln's 'House-Divided' Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.

A George, divided against itself, CANNOT stand!