- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: For you Abraham Lincoln haters out there, Razorfist just dropped a video on his channel...
Posted on 1/16/23 at 9:23 am to Flats
Posted on 1/16/23 at 9:23 am to Flats
At least had the trillions spent on invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan had been spent in the U.S. on entitlements, some of that money would have stayed in local economies. Both entitlements and “defense” spending diverted to useless endeavors abroad that endanger more Americans than they protect are bankrupting our nation. It’s not a one-or-the-other problem. They’re both killing us.
This is all glossing over the massive expansion of executive power justified by the response to the 9/11 attacks. Homeland security, the TSA, FISA courts, domestic spying without warrants, drone strikes on U.S. citizens, terrorist watch-lists, etc.
This is all glossing over the massive expansion of executive power justified by the response to the 9/11 attacks. Homeland security, the TSA, FISA courts, domestic spying without warrants, drone strikes on U.S. citizens, terrorist watch-lists, etc.
This post was edited on 1/16/23 at 9:25 am
0
Posted on 1/16/23 at 10:04 am to Giantkiller
Americans are positively goofy about their own civil conflict. It boggles the mind.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 10:09 am to INTmachine
Killing half a million people because they don't want to pay taxes to you and don't want to be in your same house is a bit much.
Do you beat your wife to 'save the marriage'?
Do you beat your wife to 'save the marriage'?
Posted on 1/16/23 at 10:12 am to INTmachine
That's religious mumbo jumbo to cover man made choices. Slavery wasn't extirpated anywhere else with such violence as it was here. That is the result of man made refusals to compromise and be done with it.
Just like lincoln, you blame God for the judgment. That's lincoln's second inaugural to a T.
Just like lincoln, you blame God for the judgment. That's lincoln's second inaugural to a T.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 10:22 am to Buryl
That's not true at all. It was the South who offered to discuss terms to dissolve the Union and pay its share of the debts. It was Lincoln who refused to hear any of it.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 10:23 am to Buryl
quote:Why?
I find it strange how some are indignant about Lincoln jailing a few journalists, but the south literally enslaving millions of people, seceding, and fighting a war to maintain that slavery is excused. It seems just a bit hypocritical.
For good or ill, in 1861 the Constitution protected the rights of journalists, and it did not prohibit chattel slavery. You have to judge his actions by the standards of HIS time, not ours.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 10:42 am to DawgRebelinAL
quote:I am familiar with the efforts of North Carolina during the 1860 election cycle. Is this what you reference?
It was the South who offered to discuss terms to dissolve the Union and pay its share of the debts. It was Lincoln who refused to hear any of it.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 10:54 am to INTmachine
A constitution, especially in a federal system, is basically a treaty. Can you actually imagine a treaty from which one is never able to withdraw?
Would it have been "better" if the Founders had explicitly addressed that issue in 1789? Sure. But they were in the process of trying to SALVAGE an utterly-FAILED nation-state. (People today tend to forget what an UTTER failure this nation was, between victory at Yorktown in 1781 and the new Constitution in 1789.)
Outlining a method for withdrawal was not really their priority at the time.
Would it have been "better" if the Founders had explicitly addressed that issue in 1789? Sure. But they were in the process of trying to SALVAGE an utterly-FAILED nation-state. (People today tend to forget what an UTTER failure this nation was, between victory at Yorktown in 1781 and the new Constitution in 1789.)
Outlining a method for withdrawal was not really their priority at the time.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 10:56 am to Tmcgin
quote:Why engage in this sort of childish argument?
Still bitter he freed the slaves?
It is entirely possible to discuss Lincoln's failures without believing that chattel slavery was some sort of "good thing."
Posted on 1/16/23 at 11:02 am to KiwiHead
quote:South Carolina militia firing on Fort Sumter was arguably the biggest political mistake of the Civil War era.
.He really has no choice and after Ft Sumter
With the first round fired, the South went from being (a) a group of people trying exercise their legal rights to withdraw from a political union to (b) the aggressors in a military conflict.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 11:27 am to BuckyCheese
quote:
Well, considering the South shot first...
Its almost as if John Brown never existed
Almost
quote:
The Harpers Ferry raid and Brown's trial, both covered extensively in national newspapers, escalated tensions that led, a year later, to the South's long-threatened secession and the American Civil War. Southerners feared that others would soon follow in Brown's footsteps, encouraging and arming slave rebellions.
The South felt they had no choice to leave because of the zealots and murders in Virginia by Northerners. Also, John Brown was hailed as a hero in the North. Because he fired first
Dec 1859 - John Brown hanged
Nov 1860 - Lincoln elected (with only 39% of the popular vote)
Dec 1860 - S. Carolina secedes
Apr 1861 - Ft Sumter
The More You Know
Posted on 1/16/23 at 11:32 am to RobbBobb
quote:John Brown was not a state actor.
Dec 1859 - John Brown hanged
Nov 1860 - Lincoln elected (with only 39% of the popular vote)
Dec 1860 - S. Carolina secedes
Apr 1861 - Ft Sumter
He was arrested, tried and executed for his criminal actions.
INTERESTING FACT
He attacked a federal facility, but was tried in a Virginia Court under Virginia law. Imagine THAT happening today.
This post was edited on 1/16/23 at 11:44 am
Posted on 1/16/23 at 11:41 am to RobbBobb
Posted on 1/16/23 at 11:43 am to Giantkiller
quote:
Who hates Abraham Lincoln?
Students of history? People that actually looked at his actions and his utter disregard for the republic?
Posted on 1/16/23 at 12:03 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
He attacked a federal facility
same as Ft Sumter, right?
In fact, the attack on Ft Sumter wasnt even on a federal facility. SoCar has seceded 6 days earlier, and a Union officer Left the federal facility Ft Moultrie "on his own initiative, without orders from his superiors", and seized the unfinished fort in the state of SoCar
Making it a violation in both the US and SoCar eyes. Since we were not at war, and all
Posted on 1/16/23 at 12:15 pm to RobbBobb
quote:In 1805, the state of South Carolina ceded ownership of Fort Moultrie to the federal government. Then, in 1836, the state of South Carolina ceded ownership to the federal government of the artificial island on which Fort Sumter was being constructed.
In fact, the attack on Ft Sumter wasnt even on a federal facility. SoCar has seceded 6 days earlier, and a Union officer Left the federal facility Ft Moultrie "on his own initiative, without orders from his superiors", and seized the unfinished fort in the state of SoCar
Making it a violation in both the US and SoCar eyes. Since we were not at war, and all
The fact that the FORT had not yet been completed by 1861 did not change that fact that the real estate belonged to the federal government. There was no "violation" of anything, when a federal military officer repositioned some of his troops from one federal facility to another.
We can certainly discuss whether the federal government should have eventually ceded the real estate BACK to South Carolina as part of a peaceful secession, but that is a different discussion entirely.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 12:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
There was no "violation" of anything
Did he have orders to do such?
Is that an offense that would go on report? If so, it was a violation of US standing. He had no authority to be there, by either side in the dispute
Posted on 1/16/23 at 12:38 pm to RobbBobb
quote:Anderson had the command of all federal troops and military facilities in/around Charleston, South Carolina. Both Moultrie and Sumter were within his purview. You might as well be asserting that he would be subject to court martial for moving troops from one barracks to another.
Did he have orders to do such?
Is that an offense that would go on report? If so, it was a violation of US standing. He had no authority to be there, by either side in the dispute
Posted on 1/16/23 at 2:12 pm to AggieHank86
Not only this, both Buchanan and Lincoln ordered Anderson not to surrender his garrison.
This post was edited on 1/16/23 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 1/16/23 at 3:06 pm to HempHead
quote:
Anyone viewing Lincoln as some sort of humanist beacon is fooling themselves.
That's exactly what Lincoln was - a great and good man.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News