NationStates Jolt Archive

No flaming

I know I went over this before, but that thread is buried, and I thought I might devote a whole thread to this to see what everybody thinks (about Lincoln).

He was the political version of the Messiah. He reunified the Union. Even after the Civil War, he had plans to bring the South back into the fold, and that would have probably worked better than the radicals that filled Congress once he was murdered.
I have a feeling why some would call him a tyrant: he waved habeas corpus during the draft riots. However, I believe he had a right to do that. The constitution waves habeas corpus during times of invasion or rebellion. Both were happening, so Lincoln threw them in jail. They were all eventually charged, but only after the war.

He was the political version of the Messiah. He reunified the Union. Even after the Civil War, he had plans to bring the South back into the fold, and that would have probably worked better than the radicals that filled Congress once he was murdered.
I have a feeling why some would call him a tyrant: he waved habeas corpus during the draft riots. However, I believe he had a right to do that. The constitution waves habeas corpus during times of invasion or rebellion. Both were happening, so Lincoln threw them in jail. They were all eventually charged, but only after the war.
Agreed. He did what he needed to do.

I'd recommend The Real Lincoln to everyone. Damn good book. I picked it up yesterday.

as has been stated by red mage of www.nuklearpower.com, lincoln was the most powerful man, ever, with an A. if he could re-unify the union, ain't nothing he couldn't have done. :Subscript: john wilkes booth can only beat lincoln under extenuating circumstances :end subscript:

I'd recommend The Real Lincoln to everyone. Damn good book. I picked it up yesterday.
Judging by your position on the matter, anti-Lincoln I suppose?

:down:

Now, I'm not the most informed on US history, but was it true that he supported slavery only until politically convenient for him to change his stance?

Judging by your position on the matter, anti-Lincoln I suppose?

:down:

Yes, but well-researched. It has its faults to be sure, but I'd recommend at least skimming through it if you ever hit the library.

Now, I'm not the most informed on US history, but was it true that he supported slavery only until politically convenient for him to change his stance?

He opposed the extension of US slavery, but not slavery where it existed. He was (but then again, most people were back then) an ardent white supremacist.

Now, I'm not the most informed on US history, but was it true that he supported slavery only until politically convenient for him to change his stance?
My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that...damnit, where is the rest of that quote, its far more relevent, but I don't want to paraphrase it...

He opposed the extension of US slavery, but not slavery where it existed. He was (but then again, most people were back then) an ardent white supremacist.

True. Social Darwinism and all that.

My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that

That's right! I knew i'd heard a quote like that somewhere.

True. Social Darwinism and all that.



That's right! I knew i'd heard a quote like that somewhere.
I need the rest of it to prove my point, I didn't get the full version...and now I can't find it. Futter.

I need the rest of it to prove my point, I didn't get the full version...and now I can't find it. Futter.

Ah, don't worry about it. You've already convinced me :)

I need the rest of it to prove my point, I didn't get the full version...and now I can't find it. Futter.

Here you go:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because it helps to save the Union.

Greatest American president in history.

Greatest American president in history.

That'd be Washington, in my opinion.

People, everyone has their faults. Sure, Lincoln may have been a bigotted (sp?) person, but everyone was back then. But when compared to the Confederates, I'd say that Lincoln was a pretty nice guy.

No flaming

I know I went over this before, but that thread is buried, and I thought I might devote a whole thread to this to see what everybody thinks (about Lincoln).

One of those people the Americans always goes on and on about, apart from the fact he did nothing apart from speak in an annoying American accent about that crappy flag and how people should show respect towards America and... oh forget it, he was cock, simple as that.

Khaddafi is the coolest there is.

i saw he was an opresser to the confederate states of the america i mean he started the war of northeren agression and think the south wouldve been much better if he left it alone he destroyed my familys chance at a good and prosperous future and education.

Well he unified us again but he did it unecessarily through violence I believe it could have been done peacefully and that the war was wrong and unecessary. I also don't believe he was the great moral leader he is said to be when it came to this obviosly but also on the issue of slavery, very few truly were.

Good stuff as always roach!

People, everyone has their faults. Sure, Lincoln may have been a bigotted (sp?) person, but everyone was back then. But when compared to the Confederates, I'd say that Lincoln was a pretty nice guy.

Compared to the Confederates? The Union fought extremely barbarously during that war. Also, Jefferson Davis, whatever his faults may have been, was not the totalitarian monster that Lincoln- our first communist President- was. And did you know, for example, that Robert E. Lee was staunchly against slavery? And that Ulysses S. Grant owned slaves himself? Did you also know that only about 6% of the people in the South owned slaves? Blacks were treated just as bad, and often much, much worse, in the North than they were in the South.

Well he unified us again but he did it unecessarily through violence I believe it could have been done peacefully and that the war was wrong and unecessary. I also don't believe he was the great moral leader he is said to be when it came to this obviosly but also on the issue of slavery, very few truly were.

Good stuff as always roach!

Thanks. Emancipation could have definitely been accomplished peacefully. The nations of Europe were able to abolish slavery without bloodshed, so why couldn't we? (Which is just one of the many topics Prof. DiLorenzo examines in his book, The Real Lincoln.)

great book by dilorenzo indeed. He has a new one out I need to pick up about the pilgrims and the early days of capitalism and such I believe

great book by dilorenzo indeed.

Ah, you read it, eh? ;) Have you read any of his other books? If so, would you recommend any? (I only read The Real Lincoln)

I've never quite figured out how the Southerners can spin the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression." It was the South who began seizing Federal property, and it was Southern gunners who first fired at Sumter. In my opinion they deserved everything they got, including the massive devestation to civilian property. You challenge the goverment, prepare to get screwed with. At least, thats how I think it should be done.

As with the European nations abolishing slavery without bloodshed, I'm no expert but I'm pretty damn sure that Europe had nowhere near the dependency on slavery that the South had.

I know only a minority of Southerners owned slaves, and that the number with more than 10 probably wasn't more than a few dozen. But, it was this wealthy elite that controlled the South, the rest of the population was too poor to really care about politics. The Elite stood to gain the most from the expansion of slavery (despite it being somewhat infeasiable westward) and succession.

Tyrant because he threw his political opponents in jail and he owned slaves longer than most southerners. And he also let his generals burn towns and kill civilans.

Tyrant because he threw his political opponents in jail and he owned slaves longer than most southerners. And he also let his generals burn towns and kill civilans.

Good point.

Nope roach I to have only read that one book of his but you can read some other stuff of his over at lewrockwell.com he was also over at the mises university you can listen to his audio recordings online at the mises.org site

Good point.

Nope roach I to have only read that one book of his but you can read some other stuff of his over at lewrockwell.com he was also over at the mises university you can listen to his audio recordings online at the mises.org site

Thanks, Josh! (By the way, did you know we have the same first name? ;))

Greatest American president in history.

I'd have to say that Washington was a better president overall, but Lincoln did some amazing stuff during his life. Besides re-unifying the union as people have previously stated, he won his presidential election as a third-party candiate. That's damn tough - nearly impossible.

He did more good to America today than he did in the 1860's, that's for sure.