 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
The Republicans of that era would be the Democrats of today. Comparing the neo-fascist right wing organization known as the GOP to the Republicans of the mid to late 19th century is false. They share little more than a name. |
You are like to a snot nosed toddler who cries wolf at the sight of toy poodle. Bad doggie, Bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Because its not related to your claim. The South started the War and that makes THEM responsible for the deaths in any case. |
Whoever "started" the war involves minor legal semantics. Its irrelevant. It takes two sides to execute the war.
quote:
You can't buy or sell conscripted soldiers. |
Irrelevent distinction. I meant slavery as a general term, not referring to the special case of blacks in t he US. How bout forced labor? Is that a better term?
quote:
I suppose I could be mixing you up with someone else that is a Libertarian and maybe you are an anarchist. |
Yep.
quote:
In which case there is no capacity for reason in you. Anarchy can only lead to some hardcase taking over. Its not a viable system. |
Not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Anarchists like the Catalonians during the Spanish revolution or the Zapatistas during the Mexican revolution, the Paris Communards, etc., were all brought down through overwhelming external force, not internal politics.
quote:
Even more brain dead than extreme Libertarianism. |
quote:
I am still waiting for those numbers by the way. The War deaths are usually given as around 600,000 and as |
Hmmm.. you're right. I looked up the the war deaths a minute ago, and a link mislead me (I though it was ~600,000 too). 
quote:
I pointed out that number is the responsibility of the people that started the war not the people that ended it. |
That's silly. It's the responsibility of the sides that were wrong, in this case, both sides.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I would like to interject a serious comment that shows the mindset of many America whites in the period before the war. Lincoln advocated a policy of colonialization for blacks to territory outside the US. He opposed equal rights for blacks. No voting, no office holding. Just food for thought.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:22
|
|
Ooooh, Boris:
quote:
When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, -- to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. |
October 16, 1854
(Emphasis Mine)
http://www.nps.gov/liho/slavery/al05.htm
While he thought slavery was illegal it was against his OWN FEELINGS that blacks should be made equals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
That Europeans are far more enlightened than southerners is well established fact. |
I guess that depends on your definition of "enlightened." But if we're making generalizations, it's a well established fact that whites are smarter than blacks, and that blacks commit far more violent crime. You like those? No? Why not shut the hell up then?
Sava,
quote:
I'm not going to debate what Lincoln might have thought or said about them. Actions speak louder than words *cough* Emancipation Proclamation *cough* |
Funny how he waited until just after Antietam, the first major Union victory against Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.
Ethelred,
quote:
Well at least I allready had a suspicion as to what kind of mind you have. |
One that disagrees with you? Can't have that, can we?
quote:
Because its not related to your claim. The South started the War and that makes THEM responsible for the deaths in any case. |
Actually the USA started the war by attempting to resupply US troops in CSA territory, and refusing to withdraw said troops, and by invading Virginia.
quote:
You can't buy or sell conscripted soldiers. |
What does that matter? The concept of slavery essentially means forced labor, and there's no way you can say that conscription is not forced labor.
quote:
I am still waiting for those numbers by the way. The War deaths are usually given as around 600,000 and as I pointed out that number is the responsibility of the people that started the war not the people that ended it. |
Approximately 160,000 CSA, 360,000 USA deaths, in addition to thousands of civilians. Not to mention thousands more who were displaced and had their lives ruined by William T. Sherman, who was much more a war criminal than Slobodan Milosevic. And all this because Lincoln had an inferiority complex about his penis size, and wouldn't dream of letting people exercise their Constitutional rights in order to avoid all that slaughter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
Come on, DF, you know better history than that. Lincoln first planned to issue the Proclamation in the summer of 1862, and had mentioned it to Sumner in 1861. It was Seward who convinced Lincoln not to issue it until after a Union victory, lest it be seen as a "las shriek of defeat." While not necessarily as noble, it was certainly the right thing to do, as it made the Proclamation actually meaningful. What good would it have done to issue it while in the middle of a losing war, and have it just chalked up as a gasp of desperation?
That doesn't in anyway besmirch Lincoln's intent with issuing it, just because he did it in a politically savvy way.
Oh, and as for Lee:
He didn't push for the slaves to be allowed to fight for the CSA (note, not freed out of hand: freed only if they fought and lived) until March of 1865. Looks like he requested it out of desperation, since the South was a big time loser by this point. So much for his noble intentions there. Now who's distorting history?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Come on, DF, you know better history than that. Lincoln first planned to issue the Proclamation in the summer of 1862, and had mentioned it to Sumner in 1861. It was Seward who convinced Lincoln not to issue it until after a Union victory, lest it be seen as a "las shriek of defeat." While not necessarily as noble, it was certainly the right thing to do, as it made the Proclamation actually meaningful. What good would it have done to issue it while in the middle of a losing war, and have it just chalked up as a gasp of desperation?
That doesn't in anyway besmirch Lincoln's intent with issuing it, just because he did it in a politically savvy way. |
True, but that only goes to back up my position that the Emancipation Proclamation was political. As Imran pointed out, not only did it not effect slaves in the USA, but it was not issued until a politically opportune time.
It was really meaningless to begin with, seeing as how the former US states of Virginia, Tennesse, etc., had already seceded and were no longer part of the US nor bound by federal law or Constitutional restrictions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
He certainly advocated full civil rights for blacks by the end of his life. |
HA! Then why didn't he try to push it through?! Congress was ready and willing to do so. Hell, it had to drag Johnson, who was implimenting Lincoln's appeasement plan to the letter, kicking and screaming to get the 14th and 15th Amendments passed.
If Lincoln really believed in full civil rights for blacks, like say Thaddeus Stevens did, then he would have actually done something about it instead of things like the Emancipation Proclimation which basically did nothing (they freed slaves in places where the US had no control). Why didn't he make an Emancipation Proclimation freeing the slaves in the US at the same time as he did the other? Congress would surely have backed him up (seeing as they were much more radical than he was on that issue). |
Oh come on. Perhaps because he had the tenuous nature of the border slave states to deal with? He was in the middle of a war, for pete's sake. He couldn't afford to drive the border states into the South's arms, especially given the location of DC. And do you honestly think that Lincoln, being the smart fellow he was, didn't know full well that by issuing the Proclamation for the CSA, it would inevitably lead to the abolition of the border states after the war? He issued the proclamation with full intentions slavery would be abolished in full after the war, since he himself believed the nation could not endure divided between slave and free states. Issuing the Proclamation was indeed the de facto end of slavery in the U.S.
And your speculation he wouldn't support those ammendments is just that...speculation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
BG, if he truly believed an Emancipation Proclamation was the right thing to do, he should have done it without regard for politics.
What you're saying is that right and wrong should be subject to politics. I don't buy that theory at all, and I believe acting contrary to your beliefs in the name of political expediency is wrong.
But again, it was nothing more than a political ploy anyway, because he had to have known - or should of, if he read the Constitution instead of blindly trying to force people into a country who didn't want to be there - it didn't mean anything - one cannot dictate internal policy to sovereign nations, and one cannot issue arbitrary edicts to the citizens of foreign countries, which is what Lincoln in effect was trying to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
but did have the authority to do so as commander-in-chief in hostile territory as an emergency measure. |
No he didn't. Even if one assumes that the CSA was NOT sovereign, Lincoln still could not act in that way without Congress at the bare minimum (and personally, I don't think the federal government had any way to act at all, at least Constitutionally).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
BG, if he truly believed an Emancipation Proclamation was the right thing to do, he should have done it without regard for politics. |
Oh please. So he should have issued when he knew it would be a political dead act that would carry no weight whatsoever with anybody? Come on. Even you, I wager, make calculated moves on when to act on what you know to be right and when to wait for the best time to do so in the name of maximizing effectiveness.
Lincoln had the foresight to see he had to be right in his timing of the issue. I hardly see that as something to condemn him over. And, he supported a constitutional ammendment to abolish slavery. He just didn't feel he had the authority to abolish it on his own in the Union. You may quibble with the constitutionality of it, but that hardly speaks to his intentions, if he really believed that, which his writings support.
quote:
What you're saying is that right and wrong should be subject to politics. I don't buy that theory at all, and I believe acting contrary to your beliefs in the name of political expediency is wrong. |
If he really believed the President couldn't abolish slavery, and it could only be done so via Constitutional Ammendment, but that his powers as C-in-C gave him the authority to do so in the CSA, then he wasn't acting contrary to his beliefs. Once again, you can debate the legal aspects, but I don't think you can really say you know his intentions.
quote:
But again, it was nothing more than a political ploy anyway, because he had to have known - or should of, if he read the Constitution instead of blindly trying to force people into a country who didn't want to be there |
How many slaves wanted to be a part of the CSA? And not all Southerners wanted to secede, David. In fact, the CSA had huge problems with pro-Unionist uprisings they had to quell. It was not as united on secession as you pretend.
quote:
- it didn't mean anything - one cannot dictate internal policy to sovereign nations, and one cannot issue arbitrary edicts to the citizens of foreign countries, which is what Lincoln in effect was trying to do. |
And again, Lincoln earnestly did not believe the South was a sovereign nation with a right to secede. You may disagree, but I don't think you can question his earnest belief of this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What about Calhoun's threat of nullification over the 1832 tariff? The Hartford Convention during the War of 1812 (NorthEastern states opposed to the war)? |
Neither of those actualy have anything to do with states rights. Both are clearly rights given to the Federal government alone. I would have to say the any reference to states rights was purest hyperbole.
quote:
And after the Civil War: speed limits, liquor laws, right to vote for women were done in MANY states before the Federal government did it in the 20s. All are examples of states' rights. It is THE greatest issue in the history of the United States. |
Hardly. Slavery was the greatest issue in US history sine the Revolution itself. They are examples of states doing things they have the right to do. Not people spouting off about states rights.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2002 08:51
aw did I make the evil right winger cry? I'll mail you some Kleenex[tm] to wipe your tears, sweetheart.
|