Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame. | Page 8 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
redandright
Member since Jun 2011
3823 posts

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


quote:

And your point is . . . ?


Just that it's not so cut and dry.

Not justifying slavery. Just a point about human nature.

As Abigal Adams said, "All men would be tyrants if they could", or something to that effect.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
League Champs
Bayou Self
Member since Oct 2012
3336 posts

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


quote:

The revisionist history lesson being given in this thread in an attempt to make the south look like the "good guys" is amazing.

Good guys? Slavery vs 600,000 dead. There were no good guys!

Saving the union? A union that wasnt completely formed yet? Thats worth 600,000 lives?

Sorry, but the end does not justify the means on either side. But mass murder on that scale does not justify keeping the lines on our map in tact. Or freeing an enslaved race, when it was demonstrated over and over and over that it could be done without killing your neighbors.

Whats next? Killing our neighbors who do not share our views on immigration? I mean people are being freed from an oppressive life in Central and South America. Thats worth a few million American lives. Right?






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
25991 posts

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


quote:

Good guys? Slavery vs 600,000 dead. There were no good guys!



So do you think there were good guys in World War II, a war that killed 60 million people to eliminate fascism and free millions of enslaved people who were considered by their foes to be inferior?






Back to top
VOR
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
42318 posts

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


quote:

quote:
Good guys? Slavery vs 600,000 dead. There were no good guys!



So do you think there were good guys in World War II, a war that killed 60 million people to eliminate fascism and free millions of enslaved people who were considered by their foes to be inferior?




Good point. If someone engages in reductive reasoning, he can always make fatuous arguments regarding war and its death toll.







Back to top
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
5791 posts

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


quote:

Good point. If someone engages in reductive reasoning, he can always make fatuous arguments regarding war and its death toll.


Not a good point, even the most ardent Lincoln apologists admit the war wasn't fought to free slaves. It was fought to preserve a broken sovereign construct.






Back to top
League Champs
Bayou Self
Member since Oct 2012
3336 posts

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


quote:

Good point. If someone engages in reductive reasoning, he can always make fatuous arguments regarding war and its death toll.

It absolutely justifies the next pro-life president to wage war on its citizens, in order to save lives. amirite?






Back to top
Roaad
LSU Fan
Bushrod Owns
Member since Aug 2006
52747 posts

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


quote:

even the most ardent Lincoln apologists admit the war wasn't fought to free slaves. It was fought to preserve a broken sovereign construct.
That is actually wrong. From a Northern perspective, you are right.

War has 2 sides, though.

The South fought to preserve the institution of slavery through secession.

The North fought for preserving the Union. The South fought for slavery. Those are indisputable facts.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
25991 posts

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


quote:

It absolutely justifies the next pro-life president to wage war on its citizens, in order to save lives. amirite?



So...by that reasoning...no war has ever been just? And...last I checked...the South fired on the Union first.







Back to top
  Replies (0)
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
12256 posts

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


quote:

Saving the union? A union that wasnt completely formed yet? Thats worth 600,000 lives?



You know how I know you're full of shite and trolling.

quote:

mass murder


It was war. Are you now going to tell me every war ever fought was mass murder?

The fact is, once you join the little United States club. You are here to stay. The north fought to preserve that club. The south fought to preserve slavery. You might not enjoy the thought that that's what your ancestors were doing.

But it is fact.

This attempt to revise the shitty part of history that you don't like is beyond stupid.






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54111 posts
 Online 

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


quote:

The North fought for preserving the Union. The South fought for slavery. Those are indisputable facts.
The North fought for tariffs used to raise revenue on the backs of Southerners. Southerners fought for States rights. Those are also indisputable facts.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
25991 posts

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


quote:

Southerners fought for States rights. Those are also indisputable facts.



The above is an indisputable fact - the states' right to own slaves. Keep burying your head in the sand over the tariff issue though. I can 100% guarantee you that the word on the minds and lips of Americans in 1860 was not "tariff".






This post was edited on 11/24 at 12:05 pm


Back to top
Roaad
LSU Fan
Bushrod Owns
Member since Aug 2006
52747 posts

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


quote:

The North fought for tariffs used to raise revenue on the backs of Southerners.
horseshite, and you know it.

The North never goes to war unless the South secedes.

The South seceded over the fear of losing their "state right" to own humans as fricking property.

Neither of these can be disputed with anything other than illusiory reasoning, and promoting remote secondary contributors to the conflict.



This post was edited on 11/24 at 12:16 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
League Champs
Bayou Self
Member since Oct 2012
3336 posts

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


quote:

The fact is, once you join the little United States club. You are here to stay.

Bull ficking shite.

The US was founded on the right to take leave from their governing authority. Funny how the north turned into King George all of a sudden, and diametrically opposed to its founding principles






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
25991 posts

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


quote:

Funny how the north turned into King George all of a sudden, and diametrically opposed to its founding principles


So the North fired on Fort Sumter?






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54111 posts
 Online 

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


quote:

- the states' right to own slaves. Keep burying your head in the sand over the tariff issue though
No RT, the fight from both Northern and Southern perspective was economically driven.
Of many elements, slavery was a large causal component, as was trade, economic freedom, changing proportions of Congressional representation, and fairness.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
25991 posts

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


quote:

No RT, the fight from both Northern and Southern perspective was economically driven.



Slavery WAS the southern economy. So in that regard you are correct.






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54111 posts
 Online 

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


quote:

Slavery WAS the southern economy. So in that regard you are correct.
Slavery WAS the southern economy. Yep. Care to expound on that?






Back to top
Roaad
LSU Fan
Bushrod Owns
Member since Aug 2006
52747 posts

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


quote:

the fight from both Northern and Southern perspective was economically driven.
Economic interests was a supporting factor that made up the actual reasons. . .but it wasn't the reason.

The North fought to preserve the union. Economics was a supporting point, as was ideology, logistics, culture, and nationalism.

The South fought to secede to preserve the institution of slavery. The supporting points that made slavery important to the South included economics, ideology, culture, disaffection, and regional pride.






Back to top
Roaad
LSU Fan
Bushrod Owns
Member since Aug 2006
52747 posts

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


quote:

Care to expound on that?
cotton was king






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54111 posts
 Online 

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


quote:

cotton was king
Cotton, and rice, and indigo. But that was not the nature of the question.






Back to top


Back to top