NationStates Jolt Archive

I listened to my friend the other day go on a rant about how Abraham Lincoln wasn't an extraordinary person, that he was still as racist as most Americans back then were, that he practically started the Civil War, his suspension of habeas corpus, and how the Emancipation Proclamation was only a tool to weaken the South and not really for the establishing liberty. Btw, she's African American and intelligent, so I assume she knows what shes talking about. But I also started to doubt Honest Abe when I remember how the victors write history, and I wondered whether he would've been held in the same regard had he lost to the Confederacy. So does Lincoln deserve all the praise that the US heaps on him?

"the Emancipation Proclamation was only a tool to weaken the South"?
Ask Mr. Obama how he feels about it :eek:

I actually agree with your friend, it's well known that Mr. Lincoln said that if he could keep the union together without freeing a single slave, he would do it...or something like that.

No he doesn't.

I'm not an expert but I've got a few friends who are knowledgeable on the subject and they all agree that he was nowhere near as good as he is made out to be.

that was in reply to the first post

I can't speak for him personally, but you must remember that when he declared the slaves free, he restricted that to the states in the confederacy only (which he no longer ruled). The Slave states that were still part of the union (I.E. - Missouri), got to keep their slaves until the end of the war.

Irrespective of whether you agree with the CSA's viewpoint, you have to admit that it is pretty hypocritical for a nation "founded on liberty" to go to war with a bunch of its own citizens who wanted to become independent.

I would say that he was a visionary man, but still just a man.
Getting assassinated helped build up the tales about him no doubt,
as assassination does that with people.

And victors do write the history.

"Getting assassinated helped build up the tales about him no doubt,
as assassination does that with people."

Only in america. Pretty much all US presidents who were assasinated are famous heroic types to the public.

In britain we only ever had one Prime Minister assasinated, when he was there were parties in the streets and history forgot about him. He was only PM for nine days.

"Getting assassinated helped build up the tales about him no doubt,
as assassination does that with people."

Only in america. Pretty much all US presidents who were assasinated are famous heroic types to the public.

In britain we only ever had one Prime Minister assasinated, when he was there were parties in the streets and history forgot about him. He was only PM for nine days.

I dunno, James Garfield and William McKinley's existence are barely known to many Americans.

I said "most".

I suppose that when you have so many presidents and so many of them have been assasinated it's hard to remember them all.

I said "most".

I suppose that when you have so many presidents and so many of them have been assasinated it's hard to remember them all.

Only four were actually killed, the two I named, Lincoln, and Kennedy.

Its true of course...

However he's still worthy of the praise he gets, he did do some extraordinary things...At the very least he deserves as much credit as the other great presidents he's compared to, who were just as racist,if not more so, than he...

And, even though he did only issue the Emancipation Proclamation in order to weaken the South's political position(at that time the CS still had a chance to get British and French support) later, upon witnessing the efforts of black troops on the battlefield, he became convinced that that was the primary reason for the war...

Irrespective of whether you agree with the CSA's viewpoint, you have to admit that it is pretty hypocritical for a nation "founded on liberty" to go to war with a bunch of its own citizens who wanted to

...preserve and expand an abominable institution inherently and radically hostile to principles of liberty and equality?

Oh. I thought there were more than that. I'm afraid I don't really know that much detailed US hostory. Mind you, four is still a lot. That works out at something like one per century the USA has existed (I think - the US has been around for approx. 400yrs, right?)

Oh. I thought there were more than that. I'm afraid I don't really know that much detailed US hostory. Mind you, four is still a lot. That works out at something like one per century the USA has existed (I think - the US has been around for approx. 400yrs, right?)

200 and change.

Oh yeah, I'm getting conflicted reports about which side used slaves in the Civil War first. Was it the Confederacy or the Union? My school textbook says it was the Union, but I'm not too sure...

Oh. I thought there were more than that. I'm afraid I don't really know that much detailed US hostory. Mind you, four is still a lot. That works out at something like one per century the USA has existed (I think - the US has been around for approx. 400yrs, right?)

There's been loads of attempts mind you, Reagan for example was shot, but survived.

...preserve and expand an abominable institution inherently and radically hostile to principles of liberty and equality?

The Emancipation Proclomation wasn't even thought up until well into the war so it was hardly a war against slavery. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting slavery, but surely if a large chunk of the country wished to be independent, just like the american colonies wanted independence from britain, then they should have been allowed to do so. Isn't that part of the whole principle of freedom and liberty?

*Waits for a massive debate about the Civil War to erupt*

The Emancipation Proclomation wasn't even thought up until well into the war so it was hardly a war against slavery.

It was, in practice if not in principle. The South was actively seeking to defend slavery. The North was trying to halt its expansion. That was the motive behind secession; it was the issue at the heart of things.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting slavery, but surely if a large chunk of the country wished to be independent, just like the american colonies wanted independence from britain, then they should have been allowed to do so.

The Declaration of Independence listed a series of legitimate grievances against King George III. South Carolina's Declaration of Secession centered around slavery, that is, the "states' right" to sanction the ownership of human beings of a particular race. That is not a legitimate justification for the dissolution of existing political relations--especially in the context of the inevitable conflicts and possible wars that would have ensued over Western territory.

I listened to my friend the other day go on a rant about how Abraham Lincoln...was still as racist as most Americans back then were

i suppose this depends on how racist we believe most americans were. given that his party came together largely to stop the expansion of slavery into the territories because slavery was a crime against humanity, i'd say the existence of slavers as a significant political block should skew the baseline a bit towards the more racist side.

that he practically started the Civil War

by being elected from the anti-slavery party? or by not immediately pulling out of all the federal forts and such in lands the slavers claimed were theirs?

I'm no expert but the southern states also had a few grievances, such as policies being forced on them which they didn't want and which undermined there way of life. granted we view that way of life distastefully now but to be objective you can't force modern ideals on the past.

Ultimately, as an example, if scotlan was overcome with mass, nationalistic, racist fervor, which included the degrading to a second class position all non-scottish ethnic groups, and they elected a government that aimed to carry out those sentiments, then they would still be allowed independence. The rest of the world might be dismayed as it is at zimbabwe but ultimatle, all people have the right to self determination. Or so said the founders of the USA.

In reality, Lincoln didn't do anything to the South until Fort Sumter was fired upon, other than not evacuating Federal property.

"slavers" an objective way of describing a people of whom the majority were not slave owners. By remaining in the federal forts he was in effect engineering a military confrontation.

i suppose this depends on how racist we believe most americans were. given that his party came together largely to stop the expansion of slavery into the territories because slavery was a crime against humanity, i'd say the existence of slavers as a significant political block should skew the baseline a bit towards the more racist side.

I'm pretty sure that Lincoln was against slavery more for moral reasons than political. After all, the Civil War was initially to quell a rebellion against the federal government. And he didn't even free all slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation.



by being elected from the anti-slavery party? or by not immediately pulling out of all the federal forts and such in lands the slavers claimed were theirs?

Well, does his House Divided speech ("A house divided against itself cannot stand... I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free..") count as provoking the South? Aside from that, he was a well known to be anti-slavery.

granted we view that way of life distastefully now but to be objective you can't force modern ideals on the past.

Why not? You have defended a notion of self-determination that has only come into prominence in modern times, too--but that does not mean the reasons for it do not apply to the past as well. Same with opposition to slavery: people are not to be owned, period.

Ultimately, as an example, if scotlan was overcome with mass, nationalistic, racist fervor, which included the degrading to a second class position all non-scottish ethnic groups, and they elected a government that aimed to carry out those sentiments, then they would still be allowed independence.

Within the United Kingdom? Honestly, I doubt it.

A country that is actually sovereign right now, yes. But this does not prove what you want it to. For one, this is not a matter of a right to self-determination, but simply to sovereignty, a right that is derived from an international legal order created to prevent war and provide for some semblance of justice over "might makes right." But to secede as the South did is inherently an illegal act, a violation of the rule of law rather than a right guaranteed under it.

For another, while a country would probably get away with such a thing, it does not follow even that they have a right to sovereignty: other countries may simply judge that intervention is not worthwhile. The US did not judge such in the Civil War.

The rest of the world might be dismayed as it is at zimbabwe but ultimatle, all people have the right to self determination.

Right. Black as well as white. How can you reconcile that with slavery?

I do not have the freedom to deprive another of freedom.

"slavers" an objective way of describing a people of whom the majority were not slave owners.

Slave-owners dominated Southern politics, and brought about the Civil War. Plenty of Southerners did not support secession.

True, but to describe an entire nation as "slavers" is harldy justifiable or appropriate. I might as well describe all frenchmen as "surrende rmonkeys" or all chinese as "slanty-eyed communists". They are not accurate statements they are insulting, generalising exagerations.

by being elected from the anti-slavery party? or by not immediately pulling out of all the federal forts and such in lands the slavers claimed were theirs?

In reality, Lincoln didn't do anything to the South until Fort Sumter was fired upon, other than not evacuating Federal property.

Not really. Lincoln's refusal to abandon the forts was still being worked out, and you can bet that Lincoln wanted to go to war to get the South back; he consistantly made it clear that he would not tolerate succession. That being said, he knew that he would never get enough support in the North if he just launched an attack.

So he did what many U.S. presidents do and engineered a war. By resuplying Fort Sumnter, he pushed the Confederates into opening fire. Just like that, he had the perfect excuse to fight it out.

Slave-owners dominated Southern politics, and brought about the Civil War. Plenty of Southerners did not support secession.

And plenty of northerners supported slavery.

Why not? You have defended a notion of self-determination that has only come into prominence in modern times, too--but that does not mean the reasons for it do not apply to the past as well. Same with opposition to slavery: people are not to be owned, period.

self determination is a modern phrase but the same principle, albeit articulated differently was around at the founding of the US.

You are also viewing the whole civil war as essentially resting on slavery. Slavery was a big factor but not the major one. Since I am not the most knowledgeable person on the issue, I probably cannot out argue you on the topic but you will surely know that a lot of historians take the view that the war was not over the issue of slvaery per se.

By remaining in the federal forts he was in effect engineering a military confrontation.

and how did he get buchanan to do that for him?

Not really. Lincoln's refusal to abandon the forts was still being worked out, and you can bet that Lincoln wanted to go to war to get the South back; he consistantly made it clear that he would not tolerate succession. That being said, he knew that he would never get enough support in the North if he just launched an attack.

So he did what many U.S. presidents do and engineered a war. By resuplying Fort Sumnter, he pushed the Confederates into opening fire. Just like that, he had the perfect excuse to fight it out.

well said

I refer Free Soviets to my previous post.

self determination is a modern phrase but the same principle, albeit articulated differently was around at the founding of the US.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

you will surely know that a lot of historians take the view that the war was not over the issue of slvaery per se.

...but most modern historians and modern historical scholarship disagree with them.

well said

Actually, the claim that by attempting to prevent the garrison from starving, that Lincoln engineered a war, is bullcrap. Obviously the South firing on a earlier supply ship and laying siege to the fort wasn't a act of aggression, but sending supplies to the men at Fort Sumter was.:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure that Lincoln was against slavery more for moral reasons than political. After all, the Civil War was initially to quell a rebellion against the federal government. And he didn't even free all slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation.

I'm not sure why you think he opposed slavery on moral grounds rather than political grounds. He stated quite unequivocally at the outset that the existence of slavery wasn't the issue, a number of states leaving the Union was the issue. The Emancipation Proclamation was a brilliant political stroke, in that it really didn't free anyone (a few people, namely escaped slaves residing in the North) immediately, but had the effect of keeping the UK (and thus France) out of the war. It also had the effect of causing a number of slaves to escape to the North, which caused the South to divert some of its very scarce manpower to guarding slaves. It's also quite possible that a slave rebellion was hoped for, as the South's extremely limited manpower couldn't cope with fighting the US and dealing with an insurgency in its heartland.

Well, does his House Divided speech ("A house divided against itself cannot stand... I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free..") count as provoking the South? Aside from that, he was a well known to be anti-slavery.

Well known to be anti-slavery? Where do you get that from?

In reality, Lincoln didn't do anything to the South until Fort Sumter was fired upon, other than not evacuating Federal property.

The people in the North were generally in favor of letting them go until Sumter, so Lincoln really didn't have a leg to stand on in conducting military operations until then. That doesn't mean he didn't try (the whole Star of the West fiasco) but he couldn't be overt about it.

How about when he deported an anti war Ohio senator? Makes the Alien and Sedition acts look like nothing.

I'm no expert but the southern states also had a few grievances, such as policies being forced on them which they didn't want and which undermined there way of life. granted we view that way of life distastefully now but to be objective you can't force modern ideals on the past.

sure you can. and even if you can't, the republican party platform of the time was explicitly calling slavery and the slave trade crimes against humanity, as had thinking people for over a hundred years. modern slavery had been outlawed all over the place for decades by that point. these are obvious ideals at the time and the slavers had no arguments in their favor at all, save violence against their opponents.

. That doesn't mean he didn't try (the whole Star of the West fiasco) but he couldn't be overt about it.

Buchanan sent the Star of the West, not Lincoln.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Right, and liberty pretty much equates to self determination as we would pharse it nowadays. I imagine you are also referring to the phrasing of the US constitution being against slavery but since many of those who drew up the constitution, including George Washington if my memory serves me correctly, were slave owners. And I don't see anyone calling them "slavers".


...but most modern historians and modern historical scholarship disagree with them.

Absolutely but if you look at it, over time the consensus of historical scholarship keeps on shifting from being all about slavery to being nothing about slavery. I take the viewpoint that slavery was a large issue, and became the biggest by the end of the war, but it wasn't the root cause.

Actually, the claim that by attempting to prevent the garrison from starving, that Lincoln engineered a war, is bullcrap. Obviously the South firing on a earlier supply ship and laying siege to the fort wasn't a act of aggression, but sending supplies to the men at Fort Sumter was.:rolleyes:

Yeah...Im not seeing how anyone engineered anything in the Civil War...I mean, regardless the South was going to fire on Fort Sumter unless it surrendered, and Lincoln couldnt possibly let that happen...

I guess you could make a case for the suspension of Habeas corpus, but Id think the CSA'd given that up when it decided to leave the Union...

just as an aside, isn't it fascinating how we can all sit here in the modern day, from all over the world, and talk about things that happened centuries ago to people who are long dead.

Perhaps I should go get a real life :)

Buchanan sent the Star of the West, not Lincoln.

Quite right, I was thinking of the USS Pawnee.

Actually, the claim that by attempting to prevent the garrison from starving, that Lincoln engineered a war, is bullcrap. Obviously the South firing on a earlier supply ship and laying siege to the fort wasn't a act of aggression, but sending supplies to the men at Fort Sumter was.:rolleyes:

i especially like how lincoln managed to engineer all of this months before being sworn in

Right, and liberty pretty much equates to self determination as we would pharse it nowadays. I imagine you are also referring to the phrasing of the US constitution being against slavery but since many of those who drew up the constitution, including George Washington if my memory serves me correctly, were slave owners. And I don't see anyone calling them "slavers".


That's probably because George Washington had his slaves freed after his death (I think the exact provision in his will was that they would be freed on the death of his wife actually) and he favored gradual emancipation. John Adams never owned slaves, and, if memory serves, Hamilton was a abolitionist.

sure you can. and even if you can't, the republican party platform of the time was explicitly calling slavery and the slave trade crimes against humanity, as had thinking people for over a hundred years. modern slavery had been outlawed all over the place for decades by that point.

Actually, no it hadnt...Much as the British Hated it, it was rampant in their colonies, and Brazil didnt abolish slavery till nearly the Turn of the Century...

But, the primary cause, at least officially, were Tariffs, which hurt Southern Business...However since the tariffs were enacted to curb the slave trade, its almost a moot point...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham

sure you can. and even if you can't, the republican party platform of the time was explicitly calling slavery and the slave trade crimes against humanity, as had thinking people for over a hundred years. modern slavery had been outlawed all over the place for decades by that point.

Yes but it was mainly as a political weapon. I would also like to refer you to a famous quote "The past is a foreing country, they do things differently there."

Also, remember that even people like the author of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" still thought of africans as being inferior to europeans.

Right, and liberty pretty much equates to self determination as we would pharse it nowadays. I imagine you are also referring to the phrasing of the US constitution being against slavery but since many of those who drew up the constitution, including George Washington if my memory serves me correctly, were slave owners. And I don't see anyone calling them "slavers".

Declaration of Independence, not Constitution. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, was indeed a slave-owner, but that is beside the point: the principles he laid out there were opposed to slavery, and he acknowledged as much.

I take the viewpoint that slavery was a large issue, and became the biggest by the end of the war, but it wasn't the root cause.

The Civil War was the culmination of sectarian tensions over the expansion of slavery throughout the 1850s. There had been other sectarian tensions before that, yes, but they were not at the forefront at that point.

Declaration of Independence, not Constitution. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, was indeed a slave-owner, but that is beside the point: the principles he laid out there were opposed to slavery, and he acknowledged as much.

Appologies. I don't know a great deal about that era of US history, sorry for mixing them up. In any case, my point was that the use of the term "slavers" to describe the south is just as innacurate as it would have been to describe those who drew up the declaration.


The Civil War was the culmination of sectarian tensions over the expansion of slavery throughout the 1850s. There had been other sectarian tensions before that, yes, but they were not at the forefront at that point.

I can't argue with that. Not because it can't be argued against, I know there are many arguments against what you said, but because I don't know any of the afore mentioned counter arguments. I've heard them and I agree with them, but I can't remember them.

Appologies. I don't know a great deal about that era of US history, sorry for mixing them up. In any case, my point was that the use of the term "slavers" to describe the south is just as innacurate as it would have been to describe those who drew up the declaration.

I agree with you inasmuch that stereotyping all southerners as slavers is dumb.

I find all this really interesting, but I must point out we're all going off topic.

I find all this really interesting, but I must point out we're all going off topic.

How, Its all pertinent to the evaluation of the Lincoln Administration....

By remaining in the federal forts he was in effect engineering a military confrontation.
What?

So if some of the people of the UK decided they wanted to live in Buckingham Palace, should Her Majesty just say, "Of course," and pack up the Corgis?

Skallvia I disagree. We should get back to whether lincoln is overrated. I must confess to being sidetracked.

Katganistan, we've already been over this. Please read through the previous posts. I don't expect they'll change your mind but it'll show you the viewpoint I subscribe to.

I'm no expert but the southern states also had a few grievances, such as policies being forced on them which they didn't want and which undermined there way of life. granted we view that way of life distastefully now but to be objective you can't force modern ideals on the past.

Ultimately, as an example, if scotlan was overcome with mass, nationalistic, racist fervor, which included the degrading to a second class position all non-scottish ethnic groups, and they elected a government that aimed to carry out those sentiments, then they would still be allowed independence. The rest of the world might be dismayed as it is at zimbabwe but ultimatle, all people have the right to self determination. Or so said the founders of the USA.
Hmm, as was the case in Northern Ireland?

What?

So if some of the people of the UK decided they wanted to live in Buckingham Palace, should Her Majesty just say, "Of course," and pack up the Corgis?

well, although I dont think Lincoln acted wrongly in the Sumter Situation...

The two arent really comparable, because the UK and US were founded on different principles...

but, if they were, itd be more like Scotland deciding it wanted Full independence and just leaving...rather than trying to take Buckingham Palace...

EDIT: *rolls on floor laughing uncontrollably at the hypocrisy he just committed *

True, but to describe an entire nation as "slavers" is harldy justifiable or appropriate. I might as well describe all frenchmen as "surrende rmonkeys" or all chinese as "slanty-eyed communists". They are not accurate statements they are insulting, generalising exagerations.
They weren't an entire nation.

Hmm, as was the case in Northern Ireland?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Please elucidate.

That said, I'd probably prefer a debate on NI since I know more about it.

That said, I'd probably prefer a debate on NI since I know more about it.

Id say its similar...But, Id compare the CSA more to the Republic of Ireland than Northern Ireland...

Id think Northern Ireland would be more like the Border states and West Virginia...

But at least you didn't have terrorist organisations and bombings in the civil war.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Please elucidate.
You seem to be saying through your comparison that Scotland would be allowed to leave without argument should it decide to leave the UK (which is not really a valid comparison as the United States are not countries in and of themselves), and that because the United States was not willing to let part of its population rebel and leave, they are somehow bad.

I was wondering how it is that you could make that assumption so certainly, given the bloodshed over the question of self-determinism in Northern Ireland perpetrated by both sides.

You seem to be saying through your comparison that Scotland would be allowed to leave without argument should it decide to leave the UK, and that because the United States was not willing to let part of its population rebel and leave, they are somehow bad.

I was wondering how it is that you could make that assumption so certainly, given the bloodshed over the question of self-determinism in Northern Ireland perpetrated by both sides.

Well, as I said earlier, that the two are different situations...As the US was founded on Secession from the UK...

Its not that the UK wouldnt respond to the Scottish, but that it wouldnt be hypocritical to do so, as it is/was in the US...That said, it had to be done, because, if the South had won, it would establish, officially, that Secession was legal, and there wouldn't be a US anymore..

I'm equating it to independence movements everywhere. If the majority of the population within a particular area wish independence and are capable of running themselves independently then no matter what other nations might think of their viewpoints, the independent's should be allowed independence. Don't forget the CSA had quite literally millions who wanted independence. They had as much right to it as the US had to independence from the empire.

But at least you didn't have terrorist organisations and bombings in the civil war.
http://books.google.com/books?id=LldHnF7CB3kC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=acts+of+terror+in+American+Civil+War&source=web&ots=u8yVUCrNK6&sig=c0a1L3dYXVCZ9ZFoWYDFWDdtGVQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result
http://www.americancivilwar.com/civilwar/spproduct/c005/B000P6R5NO.htm

I stand corrected. Although it isn't quite the same thing as car bombings or the organised nature of terrorism in NI.

I just keep thinking of this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q54LJ5RsqRw)

I just keep thinking of this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q54LJ5RsqRw)

I should show this to my hardcore Republican teacher (who has said that slavery isn't as bad as it seems, as it provided slaves a place to live and food to eat. Needless to say, its a Catholic school, which = concentration camp).

EDIT: She's also my U.S. History teacher. But I digress.

I'm equating it to independence movements everywhere. If the majority of the population within a particular area wish independence and are capable of running themselves independently then no matter what other nations might think of their viewpoints, the independent's should be allowed independence. Don't forget the CSA had quite literally millions who wanted independence. They had as much right to it as the US had to independence from the empire.
So if some of the people London decided to secede, and mobs set up barricades around the city and tried to kill or drive off politicians, police, et al, the authorities would just say, "Oh well, they want independence, let's go," and leave?

Where I come from any teacher who said those kind of things would be sacked and probably banned from teaching.

Where I come from any teacher who said those kind of things would be sacked and probably banned from teaching.

I remember the World History and the US History teachers down here used to argue and bicker for hours on end, and they were loud, lol...

The WH teachers were hardcore Republicans and the USH ones were hardcore Democrats...

it was quite entertaining...

I remember the World History and the US History teachers down here used to argue and bicker for hours on end, and they were loud, lol...

The WH teachers were hardcore Republicans and the USH ones were hardcore Democrats...

it was quite entertaining...

Lol, that must have been fun to listen to.

London, NI and Scotland are all far smaller than the CSA was and they have smaller populations as well. Scotland might be able to work as an independent nation, NI not likely and London not at all. The CSA ran itself and survived economically as an independent nation for the duration of the war before it was forced to surrender.

You keep on making unrealistic comparisons. Try to imagine, for example something more like the whole of russia west of the urals wanting independence. This is a completely imagined scenario but a more realistic comaprison. In that case, western russia could survive independently and if the large majority of it chose to do so then it would have as much right to independence as any other.

Certainly the CSA had as much right to independence from the US as the US had to independence from the empire.

Either way, I can't be bothered to argue any more. I'm on GMT and I need to get some rest. Good night.

True, but to describe an entire nation as "slavers" is harldy justifiable or appropriate. I might as well describe all frenchmen as "surrende rmonkeys" or all chinese as "slanty-eyed communists". They are not accurate statements they are insulting, generalising exagerations.

the people calling the shots were slavers. i don't fucking care that there existed some portion of the population that wasn't slavers, they clearly did not control any of the relevant institutions.

Certainly the CSA had as much right to independence from the US as the US had to independence from the empire.

this strikes me as obviously false, given that the entire justification for independence, self-determination, is precisely what the south sought to avoid.

That's probably because George Washington had his slaves freed after his death (I think the exact provision in his will was that they would be freed on the death of his wife actually) and he favored gradual emancipation. John Adams never owned slaves, and, if memory serves, Hamilton was a abolitionist.
yeah washington freed his slaves in his will --free when mrs washington died. but martha became afraid that she would be killed by one of them so that the rest could be free so she freed them all after a year or so....

the problem being that george had title to the minority of slaves at mt vernon and they had married the custis (martha's) slaves so freeing them split up families, something that george very much didnt want to do.

Abe may not have been a great person, and yes, the emancipation proclimation freed only the slaves in southern states but simutaneously layed the groundwork for freeing all the slaves in the United States.

The United States of America never used slaves as soldiers for the record, all of the african soldiers who fought were freed slaves who joined on thier own violition (only white males could be drafted during the Civil War) or black men who were already free.

The CSA however did use slaves tpward the end of the war to build fortifications, but never as actual combatants.

Right, and liberty pretty much equates to self determination as we would pharse it nowadays. <snip>
Soheran pointed out earlier that black people have a right to self-determination, too. You either missed or ignored that point, so I'll put it to you as a question: Do you think that some people can claim that their right to self-determination includes the right to be slave-holders and deny self-determination to those they enslave? Or do you think that a right to self-determination applies to everyone, in which case, slavery cannot be justified?

just as an aside, isn't it fascinating how we can all sit here in the modern day, from all over the world, and talk about things that happened centuries ago to people who are long dead.

Perhaps I should go get a real life :)
History IS real life.

i especially like how lincoln managed to engineer all of this months before being sworn in
He was, truly, a great president. ;) For the time travel alone, I would say he is far from over-rated, in reference to the OP question.

Appologies. I don't know a great deal about that era of US history, sorry for mixing them up. <snip>
I admire, then, your bravery in pushing your arguments about it.

And btw, WHICH era of US history are you ignorant about? The Declaration and Constitution belong to one chapter, the Civil War to a different chapter.

And btw, WHICH era of US history are you ignorant about? The Declaration and Constitution belong to one chapter, the Civil War to a different chapter.

I'd even argue that the Declaration and the Constitution remain in actually somewhat seperate chapters themselves, the secessionist period, and the post confederation, constructionist era.

I'd even argue that the Declaration and the Constitution remain in actually somewhat seperate chapters themselves, the secessionist period, and the post confederation, constructionist era.
Yes, you're right. So...I guess that's more stuff High Sussex needs to get caught up on. ;)

I listened to my friend the other day go on a rant about how Abraham Lincoln wasn't an extraordinary person, that he was still as racist as most Americans back then were, that he practically started the Civil War, his suspension of habeas corpus, and how the Emancipation Proclamation was only a tool to weaken the South and not really for the establishing liberty. Btw, she's African American and intelligent, so I assume she knows what shes talking about. But I also started to doubt Honest Abe when I remember how the victors write history, and I wondered whether he would've been held in the same regard had he lost to the Confederacy. So does Lincoln deserve all the praise that the US heaps on him?

Lincoln was a dictator and his generals were all war criminals.... You don't have to be pro-Confederate to be anti-Lincoln. Frankly, I think Lincoln made a mockery of everything America stands for... You think Bush is bad about violating civil liberties? Pah. At least Bush lets you speak out against the war...

If you think Lincoln liked black people, guess again... Read his First and Second Inaugural Addresses and that will be as clear as the sun on a cloudless day that he was every bit as racist as George C. Wallace.

The problem with being a historian is you lose the innocent, rosy picture of Americas "heroes," and you become the naysayer everyone hates... I can't tell you how many times I've been called "Anti-American" or "racist" because I've told people the true stories behind the people they idolize... It doesn't make me popular and it makes me rather depressed when I see assholes glorified like gods, but hell, I wouldn't have it any other way.

I haven't read the last 6 pages of post, so if I repeat anyone, I apologize.

The Civil War was about State's Rights ... a state's right to own slaves or not. That was a major factor, but not the only factor. Washington had begun passing laws that the south saw as unfair; this was another major reason towards the idea of southern independance.

The fact is large numbers of freed blacks owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by freed blacks is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the freed black slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more.

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million blacks in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 freed blacks owned slaves, or 28 percent of the freed blacks in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

Lincoln was a dictator and his generals were all war criminals.... You don't have to be pro-Confederate to be anti-Lincoln. Frankly, I think Lincoln made a mockery of everything America stands for... You think Bush is bad about violating civil liberties? Pah. At least Bush lets you speak out against the war...

If you think Lincoln liked black people, guess again... Read his First and Second Inaugural Addresses and that will be as clear as the sun on a cloudless day that he was every bit as racist as George C. Wallace.

The problem with being a historian is you lose the innocent, rosy picture of Americas "heroes," and you become the naysayer everyone hates... I can't tell you how many times I've been called "Anti-American" or "racist" because I've told people the true stories behind the people they idolize... It doesn't make me popular and it makes me rather depressed when I see assholes glorified like gods, but hell, I wouldn't have it any other way.
Another interesting thing about being a historian is that it doesn't automatically mean that anything you write about history won't be bullshit. A dictator and a bunch of war criminals? Seriously. :rolleyes:

Also, who gives a shit whether he personally liked black people or not. In fact, who gives a shit why he signed the Emancipation Proclamation or did anything else about slavery? He presided over its end, didn't he? We don't have slavery in the US now, do we? What possible difference can it make if the president in charge when that happened was a saint or an asshole?

I haven't read the last 6 pages of post, so if I repeat anyone, I apologize.

<snip>
So your point is...what? That "Roots" was an exaggeration? So the fuck what?

Yet another eloquent and polite american.

Tell me, how hard is it to be polite? Certainly all the people you're arguing against have been polite and haven't resorted to swearing.

My appologies to all the americans on here who are capable of discussing things in a civil manner.

the people calling the shots were slavers. i don't fucking care that there existed some portion of the population that wasn't slavers, they clearly did not control any of the relevant institutions.

Not just "some portion" but the majority did not own slaves. How hard is it for you to comprehend that not even the majority of confederates were slave owners. Either use accurate terms to describe them or shut up. By displaying your ignorance you are not helping your argument and you're certainly not helping the debate flow more easily when people keep having to correct you.

this strikes me as obviously false, given that the entire justification for independence, self-determination, is precisely what the south sought to avoid.

Why did the US want independence? To avoid paying taxes raised without representation to cover the costs of a war against the french which they were the main beneficiaries of.

If you speak to most historians I think they'll agree that the confederate grounds for secession, e.g. state's rights, were just as valid as "no taxation without representation".

Soheran pointed out earlier that black people have a right to self-determination, too. You either missed or ignored that point, so I'll put it to you as a question: Do you think that some people can claim that their right to self-determination includes the right to be slave-holders and deny self-determination to those they enslave? Or do you think that a right to self-determination applies to everyone, in which case, slavery cannot be justified?

Of course slavery cannot be justified. Certainly not by modern ethics and it was dubious by the standards of the time when it was commonplace. I'm not arguing for the rights of the slave owners. I'm arguing that slavery, though a major issue, was not the issue on which the war was started and fought. The whole conception that it was a war entirely about slavery was one extensively propogated by the victors in order to portray themselves as the "good guys". Something, which I think is somewhat indicative of american culture since the tendency in the US is to paint things in terms of good and evil rather than the shades of gray real life usually is.

And btw, WHICH era of US history are you ignorant about? The Declaration and Constitution belong to one chapter, the Civil War to a different chapter.

The latter half of the american revolutionand the period immediately following. I know a fair bit about the time leading up to the american revolt but not much about the following period other than a vaue knowledge of how the war progressed overall.

Also, who gives a shit whether he personally liked black people or not. In fact, who gives a shit why he signed the Emancipation Proclamation or did anything else about slavery? He presided over its end, didn't he? We don't have slavery in the US now, do we? What possible difference can it make if the president in charge when that happened was a saint or an asshole?

I'd suggest you read the first post of this discussion. It started off talking about lincoln. In fact that is meant to be the entire point of the discussion. Given that, then I'd say what sort of person he was makes a hell of a lot of difference.

Another interesting thing about being a historian is that it doesn't automatically mean that anything you write about history won't be bullshit. A dictator and a bunch of war criminals? Seriously. :rolleyes:

Also, who gives a shit whether he personally liked black people or not. In fact, who gives a shit why he signed the Emancipation Proclamation or did anything else about slavery? He presided over its end, didn't he? We don't have slavery in the US now, do we? What possible difference can it make if the president in charge when that happened was a saint or an asshole?

I read the First Inaugural Address of Lincoln, and I didn't notice any apparent racism in it. I'll have to go read the Second at some point to see if he was any more right about that one, though I doubt it.

Of course slavery cannot be justified. Certainly not by modern ethics and it was dubious by the standards of the time when it was commonplace. I'm not arguing for the rights of the slave owners. I'm arguing that slavery, though a major issue, was not the issue on which the war was started and fought.
And your point, which you seem to think is so novel and pivotal, is really a non-issue. There was a lot more at stake in the Civil War than the fate of slavery, and a lot more on Lincoln's plate than resolving the slavery issue. This entire matter of arguing over Lincoln's historical significance solely on the issue of slavery -- and even of downplaying his value (whatever it might be) on the grounds that slavery wasn't the core issue of the time (which is extremely debatable) -- is, in my personal opinion, a uselessly shallow way to frame the debate.

The whole conception that it was a war entirely about slavery was one extensively propogated by the victors in order to portray themselves as the "good guys". Something, which I think is somewhat indicative of american culture since the tendency in the US is to paint things in terms of good and evil rather than the shades of gray real life usually is.
A bad habit that the UK has NEVER indulged in. Right. Uh-huh. It's all about American culture. Nobody else on the planet has ever tried to make their history seem flattering to them. Sure. :rolleyes:

The latter half of the american revolutionand the period immediately following. I know a fair bit about the time leading up to the american revolt but not much about the following period other than a vaue knowledge of how the war progressed overall.
You mean that you know that your country lost it? :p

That explains the considerable amount of stuff you don't know about the Revolution. Now, explain how you managed to know so little about the Civil War period, too.

You know, your condescending tone towards Americans would work better if you actually knew anything at all about Americans or US history. You should try looking some of it up someday.

I'd suggest you read the first post of this discussion. It started off talking about lincoln. In fact that is meant to be the entire point of the discussion. Given that, then I'd say what sort of person he was makes a hell of a lot of difference.
I have read every single post in this thread. I do that, you know -- read the threads I join. I know it's weird, but it's what I'm into.

I read the First Inaugural Address of Lincoln, and I didn't notice any apparent racism in it. I'll have to go read the Second at some point to see if he was any more right about that one, though I doubt it.
I'm with you on this. All I'm hearing in terms of negative comments about Lincoln is a lot of "yeah, well, nobody's that perfect!" academic bitterness. Like something "edgy" some academic thought up to guarantee he'd get published and get lots of attention and speaking engagements.

Not just "some portion" but the majority did not own slaves. How hard is it for you to comprehend that not even the majority of confederates were slave owners. Either use accurate terms to describe them or shut up. By displaying your ignorance you are not helping your argument and you're certainly not helping the debate flow more easily when people keep having to correct you.

the south was run by slavers. full stop. there is no argument to be had here. even if 99% of the population not only didn't own slaves themselves, but personally opposed slavery, it still wouldn't change the fact that the south was run by and for slavers.

If you speak to most historians I think they'll agree that the confederate grounds for secession, e.g. state's rights, were just as valid as "no taxation without representation".

prove it. while you are at it, explain how anyone can fit the southern complaint that northern states should be forced to track down and return runaway slaves fits into 'states rights'.

I'm arguing that slavery, though a major issue, was not the issue on which the war was started and fought.

have you actually read the declarations of secession?

*sigh*

I'm not going to respond point-by-point to some of the idiocy in this thread.

Let's be clear, however, that although by our standards Abraham Lincoln was a racist, he was also clearly morally oppossed to slavery.

Also, just as the Declaration of Independence declared the basis for the American Revolution, the Declarations of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) made clear that slavery was the warp and woof of the Confederacy.

For example (emphasis added):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

I'll add Confederate Vice-President Alexander H. Stephen's Cornerstone Speech (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76):
...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

....(emphasis added)

I'll note that Stephens is specific that "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" was the issue of slavery.

Keep up the sophistry all you want, but the Confederacy was all about slavery and it was a central issue of the Civil War.

Since we're already off topic, I might as well get something out of this. The states seceded in Buchanan's presidency. Why didn't HE do something about it??

EDIT: According to Wiki there is nothing in the Constitution against secession. Is that really true...?

Since we're already off topic, I might as well get something out of this. The states seceded in Buchanan's presidency. Why didn't HE do something about it??

He didn't feel he had the right to. And if the southern states had seceded for any reason other than to keep another part of humanity in slavery I'd agree.

EDIT: According to Wiki there is nothing in the Constitution against secession. Is that really true...?[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is. There's nothing wrong with secession in and of itself, however, there's quite a bit wrong with secession for the express purpose of keeping a part of humanity enslaved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Make no mistake, the Civil War (and it wasn't a civil war) was fought over economic interests. The South fought to maintain their system of white dominance and cheap labour while the North fought to destroy this cheap labour and to keep the revenue from Southern ports. Inconsequential things, like morals, didn't come into play until it was time to get the public on board.

well he did start the civil war, however redeaming his intentions and values might have been otherwise, by refusing to let the souther states suceed peacefully. and it was for economic reasons, not to end slavery, which was something he did capitolize on, to win the support of abolitionists and put it all in a better light.

how much of a racist he was? that's impossible to gauge accurately. i believe in his day, anyone who dared to be as less racist as the most racists now, in the context of his times, might well have gotten themselves lynched, and certainly never elected president. questions like that do need to be looked at in the context of their times.

i'm not implying he was a terrible person, but certainly not some patron saint of equality either. he was a politician, like all politicians, and his intrests were those of politicians. he was a well above average orator, and as politicians go, above average in many respects.

Not really. Lincoln's refusal to abandon the forts was still being worked out, and you can bet that Lincoln wanted to go to war to get the South back; he consistantly made it clear that he would not tolerate succession. That being said, he knew that he would never get enough support in the North if he just launched an attack.

So he did what many U.S. presidents do and engineered a war. By resuplying Fort Sumnter, he pushed the Confederates into opening fire. Just like that, he had the perfect excuse to fight it out.

You need to study the presidency of James Buchanan to find the root causes for the war. Mr. Lincoln did NOT "engineer" it. The south losing their aristocratic edge in the congress was what was at stake, due to the 3/5 compromise and other mitigating economic factors of the time, including commerce and trade with the south.

If you would like some excellent sources for the events that led up to the war, send me a telegram, I'd be glad to name them.

I believe that his contributions to the adventures and journeys of Bill and Ted allow him to qualify as totally gnarly. Insert air guitar here.

And your point, which you seem to think is so novel and pivotal, is really a non-issue. There was a lot more at stake in the Civil War than the fate of slavery, and a lot more on Lincoln's plate than resolving the slavery issue. This entire matter of arguing over Lincoln's historical significance solely on the issue of slavery -- and even of downplaying his value (whatever it might be) on the grounds that slavery wasn't the core issue of the time (which is extremely debatable) -- is, in my personal opinion, a uselessly shallow way to frame the debate.

You're right. I have rather gone off topic and that particular point you are referring to is part of the Civil War debate that appears to have erupted. My apologies.

A bad habit that the UK has NEVER indulged in. Right. Uh-huh. It's all about American culture. Nobody else on the planet has ever tried to make their history seem flattering to them. Sure. :rolleyes:

Have you ever heard of the Bayeux Tapestry? Of course I’m bloody aware that countries other than the US have done the same. I notice you haven't tried to deny my point by the way. And since this debate is on an American topic, American culture is somewhat relevant. And given that American culture is foremost in the western world, you shouldn’t complain if a lot of people go on about it.

You mean that you know that your country lost it? :p

That explains the considerable amount of stuff you don't know about the Revolution. Now, explain how you managed to know so little about the Civil War period, too.

You know, your condescending tone towards Americans would work better if you actually knew anything at all about Americans or US history. You should try looking some of it up someday.

Yes I know that my country lost. How much do you know about the war of 1812? You lost that one. :P

Surprisingly, American history is not top of my reading list. I have over four thousand years of British history first. Nevertheless, my knowledge of American history is not non-existent. However, since my knowledge primarily comes through private reading in my own time, as opposed to a course on the subject, I can't claim to be as knowledgeable as some people on here. How much do you know of British history? Can you name the seven constituents of the Heptarchy for example.

That said my viewpoint on the civil war originates with a friend of mine who studied it extensively A level and convinced me of the veracity of his point of view. He got 100% in his history exam. The argument of his which most convinced me is:

"other than the obvious arguments of land size, number of people involved, cultural and regional differences stretching back to early colonisation, is that of economic importance. After a recession in the late 1850's the northern industries had suffered to a large extent where as southern agriculture (the mainstay of the southern economy) was largely unharmed. This gave rise to a movement to support greater government involvement in industry and agriculture where the US government would impose tariffs on southern agriculture, to pay for subsidies on northern industry. It should be noted that similar issues as these had lead to early secession attempts, though at the time the other states did not all rise up. The south was rightly incredulous of this, not only was this giving more power to a centralist government but increasing the administrative power of Lincoln's office. During a period of time when someone was defined by their state, i.e. Virginian before being an American, this seems a bitter pill to swallow. When taken into account with the power shifts in the U.S Congress and House of Representatives, away from a neutral balance to a more anti-southern power base. (this raises the whole issue of manifest destiny and the American genocide of the Native Indians). Therefore, since the American Constitution was a voluntary document that the states signed up to after severe modifications and even rejection by certain states, was it not their right as individual states with loose ties to a Federal government to cut ties with a regime that would not be economically or politically viable for them to continue relations with. Ultimately a States right to decide there own economic policy, which they knew best (the same argument used by Americans in the War of Independence, again they were southerners, only this time they were heroes for some reason) gave them the right to secede from the United States of America."

Obviously, those are his words, not mine. He says "hi".

Incidentally, it is not my intention to be condescending to Americans. I am certainly condescending towards certain aspects of American society, the type found on websites such as “conservapedia” for example (I use this illustration because it pretty much sums up all there is to condescend to in American society), but I have no contention with the vast majority of Americans. I was actually just commenting on your culture. You might not like the comment but I believe it is true, if you disagree I could provide you with some examples. I could also criticise my own culture if it would make you feel better.

You're right. I have rather gone off topic and that particular point you are referring to is part of the Civil War debate that appears to have erupted. My apologies.
Thank you. Debates about Lincoln always devolve into either arguments over whether he was likeable by modern standards or arguments slavery as a "state's rights" issue, which, to be frank, has a lot more to do with modern politics than it did with the US Civil War -- at least the way modern debaters frame it. Both, in my opinion, completely sidestep the question of what Lincoln really did and what impact, positive or negative, did his actions have on the nation, and therefore, what is his historical value.

I am of the opinion that Lincoln is the most important president since Washington, and arguably the most important ever, because his actions set the US on a path that determined its size and shape, that killed some paths of socio-political development while boosting others. Both what was stopped/lost and started/gained include good and bad things. It is my personal opinion, based on my reading of US history, that whatever the US is today (good, bad or indifferent), it would not be if not for Lincoln's management of the Civil War and the issues surrounding it. If the war had never happened or if it had ended differently, we would have a very different country today.

Have you ever heard of the Bayeux Tapestry? Of course I’m bloody aware that countries other than the US have done the same. I notice you haven't tried to deny my point by the way. And since this debate is on an American topic, American culture is somewhat relevant. And given that American culture is foremost in the western world, you shouldn’t complain if a lot of people go on about it.
What you did was state something that is true but apply it inappropriately, thus rendering your statement wrong, even though it is true.

You said this is a matter of US culture. It is NOT a matter of US culture since it is a standard operating procedure of ALL cultures. Therefore, there is nothing particularly USian about it.

Furthermore, your statement is a cop-out that by-passes the question at issue in the thread. Yes, yes, we all understand that history is written by the victors and, in this case, the victors were Lincoln's side. Thus, like all leaders of the winning side, Lincoln is portrayed in popular culture in glowing tones of saintliness. File that under "No shit, Sherlock." Lincoln still has a ways to go to catch up with the near-superhero worship levels Washington still enjoys.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the OP question, which is whether Lincoln actually deserves admiration and whether he really was such a terrific president.

Note the word "really" in that. We are being asked to discuss reality about Lincoln, not perception about him. The perception is already understood.


Yes I know that my country lost. How much do you know about the war of 1812? You lost that one. :P
Save your snark for a time when I'm the one making high-handed remarks about something I have already acknowledged I know nothing about.

Surprisingly, American history is not top of my reading list.
No, it's not surprising at all, after reading your comments here. :p

I have over four thousand years of British history first.
Ooh, meow-meow. Your stories are older, so I guess they take longer to read, huh?

Nevertheless, my knowledge of American history is not non-existent. However, since my knowledge primarily comes through private reading in my own time, as opposed to a course on the subject, I can't claim to be as knowledgeable as some people on here. How much do you know of British history? Can you name the seven constituents of the Heptarchy for example.
Hehe, your defensiveness is cute. I remind you again that I never claimed to have detailed knowledge of British history, and I'm not in a thread about British history telling British citizens all about how their history went and what it all means. Nor am I the one getting my hackles up when it is pointed out that I'm wrong.

That said my viewpoint on the civil war originates with a friend of mine who studied it extensively A level and convinced me of the veracity of his point of view. He got 100% in his history exam. The argument of his which most convinced me is:

"other than the obvious arguments of land size, number of people involved, cultural and regional differences stretching back to early colonisation, is that of economic importance. After a recession in the late 1850's the northern industries had suffered to a large extent where as southern agriculture (the mainstay of the southern economy) was largely unharmed. This gave rise to a movement to support greater government involvement in industry and agriculture where the US government would impose tariffs on southern agriculture, to pay for subsidies on northern industry. It should be noted that similar issues as these had lead to early secession attempts, though at the time the other states did not all rise up. The south was rightly incredulous of this, not only was this giving more power to a centralist government but increasing the administrative power of Lincoln's office. During a period of time when someone was defined by their state, i.e. Virginian before being an American, this seems a bitter pill to swallow. When taken into account with the power shifts in the U.S Congress and House of Representatives, away from a neutral balance to a more anti-southern power base. (this raises the whole issue of manifest destiny and the American genocide of the Native Indians). Therefore, since the American Constitution was a voluntary document that the states signed up to after severe modifications and even rejection by certain states, was it not their right as individual states with loose ties to a Federal government to cut ties with a regime that would not be economically or politically viable for them to continue relations with. Ultimately a States right to decide there own economic policy, which they knew best (the same argument used by Americans in the War of Independence, again they were southerners, only this time they were heroes for some reason) gave them the right to secede from the United States of America."

Obviously, those are his words, not mine. He says "hi".
Your ability to quote people (without offering any citation of who you are quoting, I notice) does not erase the glaring errors in your previous posts. I am criticizing YOUR arguments here, not other people's who are not part of this thread.

Incidentally, it is not my intention to be condescending to Americans. I am certainly condescending towards certain aspects of American society, the type found on websites such as “conservapedia” for example (I use this illustration because it pretty much sums up all there is to condescend to in American society), but I have no contention with the vast majority of Americans. I was actually just commenting on your culture. You might not like the comment but I believe it is true, if you disagree I could provide you with some examples. I could also criticise my own culture if it would make you feel better.
What I dislike about the comment is its irrelevance to the present conversation, as well as its other flaws. A critique of your culture would not help you because it would be even more irrelevant, to the point of being completely off topic.

The states seceded in Buchanan's presidency.

No.....


Lincoln elected- 1860

First state to secede from the Union (South Carolina)- 1861

EDIT: As the state seceded in December, I guess you could say that technically, yes, it was Buchanan's presidency. However, it was the policey to not recognize that the states had such a right, as so they were ignored. Fort Sumter happened in Apirl.

That said my viewpoint on the civil war originates with a friend of mine who studied it extensively A level and convinced me of the veracity of his point of view. He got 100% in his history exam.

Well, with such an expert in your pocket, how can we possibly disagree? Clearly the Confederacy itself was mistaken as to why it seceded from the Union. :rolleyes:

The argument of his which most convinced me is:

"other than the obvious arguments of land size, number of people involved, cultural and regional differences stretching back to early colonisation, is that of economic importance. After a recession in the late 1850's the northern industries had suffered to a large extent where as southern agriculture (the mainstay of the southern economy) was largely unharmed. This gave rise to a movement to support greater government involvement in industry and agriculture where the US government would impose tariffs on southern agriculture, to pay for subsidies on northern industry. It should be noted that similar issues as these had lead to early secession attempts, though at the time the other states did not all rise up. The south was rightly incredulous of this, not only was this giving more power to a centralist government but increasing the administrative power of Lincoln's office. During a period of time when someone was defined by their state, i.e. Virginian before being an American, this seems a bitter pill to swallow. When taken into account with the power shifts in the U.S Congress and House of Representatives, away from a neutral balance to a more anti-southern power base. (this raises the whole issue of manifest destiny and the American genocide of the Native Indians). Therefore, since the American Constitution was a voluntary document that the states signed up to after severe modifications and even rejection by certain states, was it not their right as individual states with loose ties to a Federal government to cut ties with a regime that would not be economically or politically viable for them to continue relations with. Ultimately a States right to decide there own economic policy, which they knew best (the same argument used by Americans in the War of Independence, again they were southerners, only this time they were heroes for some reason) gave them the right to secede from the United States of America."

1. Completely and totally ignores the primary isssue -- which was slavery and/or the expansion of slavery -- according to the seceding states themselves!

2. It is far from given that states had the right to secede from the United States. See, e.g., Texas v. White (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=74&page=700), 74 U.S. 700 (1869) (holding that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null.")

3. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the reasons the Confederate states seceded were not "the same" argument as the Declaration of Independence. That comparison is laughable on its face.

No.....


Lincoln elected- 1860

First state to secede from the Union (South Carolina)- 1861

EDIT: As the state seceded in December, I guess you could say that technically, yes, it was Buchanan's presidency. However, it was the policey to not recognize that the states had such a right, as so they were ignored. Fort Sumter happened in Apirl.
you are forgetting the lengthy buchanan lame duck period.

you are forgetting the lengthy buchanan lame duck period.

No I am not. Did you read my edit?

No I am not. Did you read my edit?
no i didnt but it doesnt change the point that antilon made.

buchanan didnt do anything because he sucked.

I listened to my friend the other day go on a rant about how Abraham Lincoln wasn't an extraordinary person, that he was still as racist as most Americans back then were, that he practically started the Civil War, his suspension of habeas corpus, and how the Emancipation Proclamation was only a tool to weaken the South and not really for the establishing liberty. Btw, she's African American and intelligent, so I assume she knows what shes talking about. But I also started to doubt Honest Abe when I remember how the victors write history, and I wondered whether he would've been held in the same regard had he lost to the Confederacy. So does Lincoln deserve all the praise that the US heaps on him?

Lincoln was like most people back then. He did think of black people as lesser beings, but he did believe that no one deserves slavery. If fact Lincoln had plans to deport all of the plans to an island he was going to call Linctopia or something dumb like.

I think he was a good leader and was someone who never let troubles get in his way. If you look at his life it is pretty extraordinary.

What I find funny is how he is considered a genius for his "team of rivals". That whole deal was actually a colossal failure. I hear Obama is thinking of doing the same thing.

I listened to my friend the other day go on a rant about how Abraham Lincoln wasn't an extraordinary person,

Becoming President is fairly extraordinary.

that he was still as racist as most Americans back then were,

So? So were Washington, Jefferson, and a load of others.

that he practically started the Civil War,

By being elected.

his suspension of habeas corpus,

He virtually became a dictator.

and how the Emancipation Proclamation was only a tool to weaken the South and not really for the establishing liberty.

No shit?


Btw, she's African American and intelligent, so I assume she knows what shes talking about.But I also started to doubt Honest Abe when I remember how the victors write history, and I wondered whether he would've been held in the same regard had he lost to the Confederacy. So does Lincoln deserve all the praise that the US heaps on him?

He won the Civil War, that is about it.

Lincoln was like most people back then. He did think of black people as lesser beings, but he did believe that no one deserves slavery.

I believe that was what the entire Republican party was about.

I believe that was what the entire Republican party was about.

Except the ones in the Senate. You know, the ones who passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th ammendment and (rightfully) extorted the South into adopting them as well.

no i didnt but it doesnt change the point that antilon made.

buchanan didnt do anything because he sucked.

While he was an idiot, he reacted to secession in the same way Lincoln may have if the South hadnt attacked. Ignored them.

Much ado is often made of the fact that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus = dictator.

Although I fully agree with SCOTUS that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and use of military tribunals was wrong, see Ex parte Milligan (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=71&invol=2), 71 U.S. 2 (1866), we are talking about the frickin' American Civil War -- i.e., rather exigent circumstances. Circumstances that by no means justified cutting corners on the U.S. Constitution in any way, but do shed light on Lincoln's actions as something other than a mere power grab.