Abraham Lincoln Was a Saint !

[qwerty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6-VQpY1NJM

[AlonzoMourning23]

Funny, Lincoln slaughtered union soldiers?

650,000 soldiers died in the civil war. Over 4 million people were freed from slavery due to the civil war, and millions of their future children were spared from that fate. I'll make that trade any day.

Idealists hate lincoln for violating laws and engaging in a war were 650,000 died, pragmatists love lincoln for freeing 4 million people and putting the country on a path towards legal, if not one day social, equality.

Laws should exist for the well being of the people. Certain people seem to think they exist simply to be followed. Sometimes existing laws are detrimental to the people and need to be violated to protect them and, as was the case here, give them greater freedom than they would otherwise have had.

[qwerty]

Funny, Lincoln slaughtered union soldiers?

650,000 soldiers died in the civil war. Over 4 million people were freed from slavery due to the civil war, and millions of their future children were spared from that fate. I'll make that trade any day.

Idealists hate lincoln for violating laws and engaging in a war were 650,000 died, pragmatists love lincoln for freeing 4 million people and putting the country on a path towards legal, if not one day social, equality.

Laws should exist for the well being of the people. Certain people seem to think they exist simply to be followed. Sometimes existing laws are detrimental to the people and need to be violated to protect them and, as was the case here, give them greater freedom than they would otherwise have had.


So, you´re still thinking that force is the only way to change things like this ? That really doesn´t make ANY sense, change things in the country kill 600,000 people, your fellow americans... Thats VERY simplistic, locig from some 3 world country which is ruled by a dictator...

Don´t act like there were no other options, please save us from that...

How the HELL others got rid of the slavery without 600.000 killed ?

And i´m not defending Ron Paul here, cause i don´t even think this should be talked in the presidential race. I just happen to believe that changing this doesn´t have to cost 600.000 people...

:rolleyes:

[lily]

So, you´re still thinking that force is the only way to change things like this ? That really doesn´t make ANY sense, change things in the country kill 600,000 people, your fellow americans... Thats VERY simplistic, locig from some 3 world country which is ruled by a dictator...

Don´t act like there were no other options, please save us from that...

How the HELL others got rid of the slavery without 600.000 killed ?

And i´m not defending Ron Paul here, cause i don´t even think this should be talked in the presidential race. I just happen to believe that changing this doesn´t have to cost 600.000 people...

:rolleyes:


I'm just curious as I haven't followed Paul as closely as you have.....but was this even an issue before he brought it up on Meet the Press?

[Keith Hamburger]

I'm just curious as I haven't followed Paul as closely as you have.....but was this even an issue before he brought it up on Meet the Press?


Paul didn't bring it up, Tim Russert did. Apparently Russert didn't want to discuss any real issues like the Iraq War or the economy or any such. Perhaps he was afraid to.

All in all, Paul handled the question, coming out of left field as it did, supremely well.

Keith

[AlonzoMourning23]

How the HELL others got rid of the slavery without 600.000 killed ?


By having a predominately abolitionist population, or having a government that doesn't need to answer to the people. Slavery was not going to be abolished democratically with the climate of the time, and if the choice is killing 600,000 or enslaving, at the minimum, 4 million (much higher when their children are born), then 600,000 is preferable.

It's odd that you value freedom so little. You would think freedom was worth dying for. It doesn't matter what the reason stated was, the end result of such a war was freedom for 4 million people.

[lily]

I'm just curious as I haven't followed Paul as closely as you have.....but was this even an issue before he brought it up on Meet the Press?


Paul didn't bring it up, Tim Russert did. Apparently Russert didn't want to discuss any real issues like the Iraq War or the economy or any such. Perhaps he was afraid to.

All in all, Paul handled the question, coming out of left field as it did, supremely well.

Keith


Wrong. Post #19 (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10084&page=2) It was Paul who was evading the questions.

[Keith Hamburger]

Wrong. Post #19 (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10084&page=2) It was Paul who was evading the questions.


Sorry. I don't see any evasion there. I see interruptions by Russert. I see Russert taking things all around the question and virtually attacking Paul. And I see Paul stating his opinion quite clearly.

And, again, Paul didn't bring up the issue. Russert did.

Unlike all of the other candidates stating what will get them the most votes, Paul states his actual opinion and has facts to back them up.

Keith

[qwerty]

By having a predominately abolitionist population, or having a government that doesn't need to answer to the people. Slavery was not going to be abolished democratically with the climate of the time, and if the choice is killing 600,000 or enslaving, at the minimum, 4 million (much higher when their children are born), then 600,000 is preferable.

It's odd that you value freedom so little. You would think freedom was worth dying for. It doesn't matter what the reason stated was, the end result of such a war was freedom for 4 million people.


OMG, freedom´s value is little to me, if i won´t like to see 600.000 people killed...Pretty odd comment...

You haven´t answered to the main argument, why others didn´t need 600.000 dead to change that issue..?

Changing issue with FORCE is logic from some 3 world country, not from any western country.

And please again, don´t act so dramatically, You can´t think clear if you do so...[hr]Lincoln Unmasked

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo112.html

Pretty interesting...

[AlonzoMourning23]

You haven´t answered to the main argument, why others didn´t need 600.000 dead to change that issue..?

You even quoted it:

By having a predominately abolitionist population, or having a government that doesn't need to answer to the people.

Now unless you can sit here and argue that the conditions would have been right to abolish slavery in the near future in the u.s. it's rather a pointless argument. For a lot of countries, like the u.k., slavery played a much less significant role in the economy due to the structure of the economy. Same thing up north in the u.s. at the time, it wasn't as essential as in the south.

OMG, freedom´s value is little to me, if i won´t like to see 600.000 people killed...Pretty odd comment...


You seem so adamant that the loss of 600,000 soldiers in a war is more significant than granting over 4 million people freedom, so it's not an odd comment.

[AnnEsthesia]

I wonder if he would also argue that the US should not have fought in the WW's, since loss of life to save life is just so horrid.

[Keith Hamburger]

Now unless you can sit here and argue that the conditions would have been right to abolish slavery in the near future in the u.s. it's rather a pointless argument. For a lot of countries, like the u.k., slavery played a much less significant role in the economy due to the structure of the economy. Same thing up north in the u.s. at the time, it wasn't as essential as in the south.

You seem so adamant that the loss of 600,000 soldiers in a war is more significant than granting over 4 million people freedom, so it's not an odd comment.


It was fairly well accepted, even in the South, that slavery wouldn't last in the US any more than 40 years, probably less. Slaves aren't as cheap of labor, in actual practice, as you might think. During the time of slavery there were stories about Irish immigrants being used for the most dangerous jobs because slaves were to valuable to be risked. In other words, it was cheaper to hire a lot of work out than to have your slaves perform it. Technology changes would only have accelerated the reduction in value to the slaves.

So, the real question isn't whether the war was justified to end slavery, but whether the deaths of 600,000 Americans was worthwhile to end slavery 20-40 years earlier than it would have ended otherwise. There is no justification for phrasing the question any differently.

Also, if slavery had been allowed to end due to natural economic conditions, do you think we would still have the civil rights issues and race baiting that has lasted to this date? There's no way to tell for sure, but I would expect if the end of slavery had come about naturally, rather than through the destruction and death of the war, the change would have been much more smooth, and less traumatic, than what we experienced.

Another issue is the precedent set for violence and the overwhelming growth of the federal government that is threatening the very existence of this country even today. Paper money, income taxes, centralized banking, imprisonment and torture of those that disagree with the government, the list could go on and on, are all things that had their precedent in Lincoln's actions.

Would the world, and especially the Americas, been better off without all of the death and destruction? No one can say for sure.

But, unlike many, I would choose peaceful resolutions to the issues facing mankind.

So, the real question, again, was it worth the destruction of the South and the deaths of 600,000 people to end slavery a few decades earlier?

Keith[hr]
I wonder if he would also argue that the US should not have fought in the WW's, since loss of life to save life is just so horrid.


We got involved in WWI after the battle had been fought to a stalemate and would likely soon be over no matter our involvement. The reason for getting into WWI was so the US could have influence over the final resolution, the Treaty of Versailles.

The Treaty of Versailles has widely been credited with creating the conditions that led to the rise of Hitler and Naziism. In addition, WWI was used to create the political geography of the modern Middle East, which we can readily tell has not given us positive results. The Balkan countries were forced together after WWI which gave us the problems we have had there, until in the past decade those countries finally manage to break into more historical and cultural entities which are far more stable.

So, there's a strong argument that if we had not been involved in WWI, the vast majority of the wars fought in the 20th Century would never have occurred, including WWII.

It's interesting that being neutral is somehow considered to be immoral today. It wasn't very long ago (about 150years) that it was considered to be highly virtuous for a nation and their people to be neutral in a fight that wasn't theirs to begin with. Now, we are considered evil if we don't pick a side in a fight and jump in the middle of it. The side we pick may, or may not, be marginally "better" than the side we fight against, but that never seems to matter. It's more important to pick a side and send our troops (largely poor and minorities, never the ones deciding to fight in the first place) to die for what is, at best, someone else's freedom.

Keith

[AlonzoMourning23]

It was fairly well accepted, even in the South, that slavery wouldn't last in the US any more than 40 years, probably less.

With the south in full control I could see it lasting into the 20's, though probably die around then, give or take a few years. Considering the majority of those 4 million would die as slaves, and their children born into it, yes, 600,000 is well worth it especially since most of those 4 million never would have been freed. And with the birth and death of some of their children the number would still likely exceed 4 million.

And considering we still have plenty of laborers doing things such as pick berries and other fruits, slaves certainly wouldn't be without use. The north largely lack such jobs, the south still has them to this day in some areas.

Also, if slavery had been allowed to end due to natural economic conditions, do you think we would still have the civil rights issues and race baiting that has lasted to this date?

Civil rights were an issue in the north as well, and slavery, for most states anyway, had died a natural death here.

[qwerty]

Now unless you can sit here and argue that the conditions would have been right to abolish slavery in the near future in the u.s. it's rather a pointless argument. For a lot of countries, like the u.k., slavery played a much less significant role in the economy due to the structure of the economy. Same thing up north in the u.s. at the time, it wasn't as essential as in the south.

So you don´t have a answer to my question, that´s not even close to answering my question...

You seem so adamant that the loss of 600,000 soldiers in a war is more significant than granting over 4 million people freedom, so it's not an odd comment.

Freeing 4 million people doesn´t have to cause 600.000 people...

Why are you talking like it´s the only choice ? That´s makes you look pretty simplistic, sorry i forgot you support the Iraq war (FORCE IS THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THINGS!).

Those 600.000 were fellow Americans...[hr]
I wonder if he would also argue that the US should not have fought in the WW's, since loss of life to save life is just so horrid.


Wtf, this has to do with CIVIL WAR ? :rolleyes:

[AlonzoMourning23]

So you don´t have a answer to my question, that´s not even close to answering my question...

For the love of god Qwerty, learn to read or don't post:


[quote=qwerty]You haven´t answered to the main argument, why others didn´t need 600.000 dead to change that issue..?

You even quoted it:

By having a predominately abolitionist population, or having a government that doesn't need to answer to the people.

That's the 3rd time I posted that, and the second time I posted it telling you I'm reposting it.



Why are you talking like it´s the only choice ? That´s makes you look pretty simplistic, sorry i forgot you support the Iraq war (FORCE IS THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THINGS!).

Your alternative? Do you know anything about the whole slave state/free state issue or the lack of majority support for the abolishment of slavery?

Those 600.000 were fellow Americans...[hr]

So weren't the 4 million slaves, even if they weren't fully classified as such.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I have to side with Keith and qwerty here.

I respect a lot of Abe's individual acts and recorded thoughts. I didn't think he was such a great president.

Hard for me to celebrate the first president to issue an executive order.

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/proc-1.htm

[Pookie]

I think he overcame a lot of roadblocks and made it to the Presidency in decent shape, but having to deal with the Civil War (and what was so "civil" about it?) and the slavery issue and actually having two presidents at once could not have been easy.
I think the man did the best he could at the time. He was never given a chance to look back or rethink his presidency like many do now.
Purrs,
Pookie