Posted byMessage
Wolfhound45
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2009
12794 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

The war began because the federal govt. wouldn't let the states leave.

Would they have started a war to abolish slavery? I doubt it.

The states on the other hand believed they had the right to leave just as they had elected to join the union.

They decided to exercise what they thought was their right and they started the war.


Agree on all points.






Back to top
NOLATide
Alabama Fan
New Orleans
Member since Jun 2007
2501 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


"History is written by the victors." In truth Lincoln was a lawless tyrant, intolerant of any disagreement, who trampled on the liberty of a people desiring to be self-governed.





Back to top
TheOcean
Florida State Fan
Member since Aug 2004
30299 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

thus destroying the Southern economy. I love how "slavery" is mentioned a few times and the "constitution" is referred to numerous times...


Sounds like you're struggling to put 2 and 2 together. Or you just want to keep arguing and sounding like an idiot






Back to top
WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
13846 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Damn, way too late.


This post was edited on 11/21 at 1:28 pm


Back to top
doubleb
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
4948 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

"History is written by the victors." In truth Lincoln was a lawless tyrant, intolerant of any disagreement, who trampled on the liberty of a people desiring to be self-governed.


Lincoln believed in the United States of America with no wiggle room. You were eithe rin or you were out and if you came in there was no way out in his mind.

What does the Constitution say about secession?

Lincoln did cut corners, he didn't got by the book when it came to the law, but it was the most serious crisis the union had ever faced and the end certainly justified the means.

As for trampling on the rights of people who wanted to be self governed, that's astretch. He trampled on the rights of some people, but not all those people wanted everybody to participate in the government.

In fact most of the people living in the US at the time couldn't govern themselves.






Back to top
mmcgrath
LSU Fan
New Jersey
Member since Feb 2010
3196 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

You are interpreting their worldview through the prism of your own, that's where you are failing. We see slavery, today, as mainly moral issue. People in the south 200 years ago saw it as a economic issue while people in the North, who did not care to understand the economic ramifications of banning slavery had the luxury of seeing it as a moral issue.

The modern day version of this is the Obamacare regulations. They can kill the economy, that's why most are against it. But liberals with no vested interest in the affected industries have the luxury of legally enforcing these regulations as a moral issue.

If war were to commence over this, one said would say the other overstepped their bounds and hurt the economy, the other would say those opposing ObamaCare are immoral.

Basically, the war was really about money and control.


It's difficult to tell if this is a bad attack on the Affordable Care Act or a bad defense of slavery.

Come on you can do better.



This post was edited on 11/21 at 2:57 pm


Back to top
glaucon
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Aug 2008
4150 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

People in the south 200 years ago saw it as a economic issue while people in the North, who did not care to understand the economic ramifications of banning slavery had the luxury of seeing it as a moral issue.

The modern day version of this is the Obamacare regulations. They can kill the economy, that's why most are against it. But liberals with no vested interest in the affected industries have the luxury of legally enforcing these regulations as a moral issue.


The "luxury" of seeing it as a moral issue? Are you shitting me? God has made of one blood all people of the earth.

It is not like Obamacare at all. One is merely a public policy question about the proper organ for providing health care and the other is an institution that stand in opposition to basic tenants of human decency and liberty.

In order words, frick you.






Back to top
doubleb
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
4948 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Unfortunately it was only a moral issue to a few, the active abolishionists.

Lincoln was not one of those.

Most people of the day believed in slavery or at a minimum tolerated it. Slavery was protected in the Constitution and it was not seen as anything illegal.

Obamacare and slavery don't equate, if any comes close it is slavery and abortion.

Think about it.






Back to top
Champagne
New Orleans Saints Fan
French and Spanish Empire Border
Member since Oct 2007
10642 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


The Civil War was about Gay Rights. Lincoln was Gay and wanted to dominate the South. But the South was not Lincoln's Gimp, and so, they seceded.

Lincoln got a big army together and went all Dominatrix on the South, and, now we are all FedGov's Bitch.






Back to top
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
9840 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Leaving Union legally and peacefully, for WHATEVER reason, does not equal war.

The IMMEDIATE and ACTUAL cause of the war was the North invading and not allowing the South to legally secede.

That's why it is call the "War of Northern Aggression"


Actually no. Only windbags like you call it that.

It's called the American Civil War. Which is what it was. Further, peaceful? Ft Sumter is calling you.






Back to top
LSUinMA
LSU Fan
Northfield, VT
Member since Nov 2008
2612 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


The Unknown Knight isn't any better interpreting the past than he is predicting the future

quote:

100% chance of a Romney landslide

- The Unknown Knight, 11/2/12

Or, as Will Rogers said, "It's not what he doesn't know that just ain't so."






Back to top
SilverSpurs13
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Aug 2011
1031 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Did not free a single slave. Research it. In fact, Lincoln was going to allow slave states to KEEP slaves if they willingly returned to the union. What does that tell you?


That the war was about preserving the union and not about freeing slaves.






Back to top
mograyback
Missouri Fan
Member since Jul 2011
7102 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


I think anyone that knows anything knows it was not fought solely to end slavery, especially for moral reasons. Slavery was involved with the reason it was fought, but for financial reasons above all. This is widely misunderstood by ignorant people.





Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
22718 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

That the war was about preserving the union and not about freeing slaves.



Once again...for those who are actually not retarded on this board:

quote:

Lincoln did not wage the war to end slavery, at least not at first. Lincoln ran for president in 1860 on a platform of non-expansion. That means he was opposed to the expansion of slavery into the western territories. The fathers of the South, however, were of the opinion that slavery could only survive if it continued to expand. Just read their words. They wanted to expand slavery west to California and south into Mexico and South America. If slavery stopped expanding, they said, it would die. That is why they seceded when Lincoln was elected because they knew that Lincoln, with a Republican majority in Congress, would prevent further states from coming into the Union as slave states.

This is well-documented in the words of the people of the time as well as the declarations of secession of states like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina. There would have been no secession crisis if it had not been for the institution of slavery and, therefore, there would have been no Civil War.

For the last time, the North did not fight the Civil War to end slavery! If you were to go back in time, say to 1863, and tell a Union soldier (especially an Irish one) that they were fighting to free slaves, he would knock your teeth out. Many of the Union soldiers were just as racist and as bigoted toward blacks as their Confederate counterparts. BUT...that doesn't take away from the fact that the Confederate government fought the Civil War to preserve the institution of slavery.

Anyone who denies slavery was the root cause of secession and civil war are just in heavy denial and are in the midst of rationalizing how their ancestors could have fought and died in a war over something so cruel and so evil as the institution of slavery.
Either that, or they are libertarian neo-Confederates who believe that, no matter the reason for their secession, the South had every right to do so.




This post was edited on 11/21 at 5:22 pm


Back to top
mooseknuckle
Louisiana Tech Fan
Clutch City
Member since Aug 2006
4424 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


There was already slavery in countries south of the US





Back to top
BTHog
Arkansas Fan
Member since Jul 2012
8335 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Lincoln would have legalized slavery if it would have prevented war. That is a fact.

That doesnt mean lincoln was pro slavery he was not. He was pro union.

Legalizing slavery was not an option so ljncoln made the pragmatic choice of siding with the north on the issue.






Back to top
Fat Bastard
New Orleans Saints Fan
Paradise
Member since Mar 2009
15622 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

If Lincoln truly fought the Civil War to end slavery





LINK






Back to top
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
5622 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

There's the problem right there. Lincoln and the U.S. Government viewed what the South was doing as completely and totally illegal.


Was the supreme court not part of the government? In fact isn't the supreme court the grand arbiter of what is constitutional? Isn't it widely speculated the Taney court would have ruled the federal gov had no authority to forcibly prevent secession.

Just because the tall tyrant viewed the salvation of the union as an ends that justified all means, does not mean it is so.






Back to top
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
5622 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Posted by RollTide1987


Posting it twice doesn't make it more relevant.







Back to top
theunknownknight
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2005
25804 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Lincoln would have legalized slavery if it would have prevented war. That is a fact.


That's what the EP was all about, it was a concession to the south, rejoin the union and keep your slaves. So the obvious question is this: Why didn't the south just rejoin then? Because the WAR wasn't about SLAVERY.

The problem in this thread is the causes for the secession and the actual war are AGAIN being conflated.

Secession was ultimately about the right for states to self-govern in the face of an ever growing federal government (sound familiar?) The War itself was about the North not accepting the secession and trying to suppress the southern states growing power (which was siding more with England at the time).



This post was edited on 11/21 at 6:46 pm


Back to top



Back to top