Let's argue about Lincoln!

There's one thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on: Abraham Lincoln was from their party. He founded the Republican Party, but was very liberal in his beliefs.

He was liberal concerning the issue of slavery, of course, but his pursuing of the Civil War was a conservative move, especially compared to the Democrats, many of whom were advocating just letting the South go.

He was a good dude.

He was liberal concerning the issue of slavery, of course, but his pursuing of the Civil War was a conservative move, especially compared to the Democrats, many of whom were advocating just letting the South go.

He wasn't extremely liberal with that issue though. Lincoln was willing to keep slavery if it meant the Union not splitting.

To throw out the obvious, the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on January 28, 2011, 01:46:46 PM

He was liberal concerning the issue of slavery, of course, but his pursuing of the Civil War was a conservative move, especially compared to the Democrats, many of whom were advocating just letting the South go.

He wasn't extremely liberal with that issue though. Lincoln was willing to keep slavery if it meant the Union not splitting.

To throw out the obvious, the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

But it does make you wonder: with the huge split between Republican and Democrats in the USA, could we be heading towards another Civil War?

I don't think the split is geographical enough. Even with red/blue states, there is a great enough mix to prevent that kind of thing.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 28, 2011, 02:11:16 PM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on January 28, 2011, 01:46:46 PM

He was liberal concerning the issue of slavery, of course, but his pursuing of the Civil War was a conservative move, especially compared to the Democrats, many of whom were advocating just letting the South go.

He wasn't extremely liberal with that issue though. Lincoln was willing to keep slavery if it meant the Union not splitting.

To throw out the obvious, the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

But it does make you wonder: with the huge split between Republican and Democrats in the USA, could we be heading towards another Civil War?

It isn't as much as a split as we are led to think in my opinion. I think this is evidenced by Obama being able to do stuff, even in a lame duck.

I don't think the split is geographical enough. Even with red/blue states, there is a great enough mix to prevent that kind of thing.

I don't think you need a geographical split to have a civil war, just enough friction between the ideals.  Friction the Media is all too happy to provide.

Quote from: Lorddave on January 28, 2011, 02:15:04 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 28, 2011, 02:11:16 PM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on January 28, 2011, 01:46:46 PM

He was liberal concerning the issue of slavery, of course, but his pursuing of the Civil War was a conservative move, especially compared to the Democrats, many of whom were advocating just letting the South go.

He wasn't extremely liberal with that issue though. Lincoln was willing to keep slavery if it meant the Union not splitting.

To throw out the obvious, the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

But it does make you wonder: with the huge split between Republican and Democrats in the USA, could we be heading towards another Civil War?

It isn't as much as a split as we are led to think in my opinion. I think this is evidenced by Obama being able to do stuff, even in a lame duck.

I don't think it matters the actual split level but more what we think the level is.  All it would take is a large enough group of one side to start attacking the other, I think.
Of course the USA is full of less ... idealistic people these days so it could just boil down to most people saying "I don't wanna get involved".

Quote from: Benocrates on January 28, 2011, 02:16:37 PM

I don't think the split is geographical enough. Even with red/blue states, there is a great enough mix to prevent that kind of thing.

I don't think you need a geographical split to have a civil war, just enough friction between the ideals.  Friction the Media is all too happy to provide.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 28, 2011, 02:21:38 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on January 28, 2011, 02:15:04 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 28, 2011, 02:11:16 PM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on January 28, 2011, 01:46:46 PM

He was liberal concerning the issue of slavery, of course, but his pursuing of the Civil War was a conservative move, especially compared to the Democrats, many of whom were advocating just letting the South go.

He wasn't extremely liberal with that issue though. Lincoln was willing to keep slavery if it meant the Union not splitting.

To throw out the obvious, the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

But it does make you wonder: with the huge split between Republican and Democrats in the USA, could we be heading towards another Civil War?

It isn't as much as a split as we are led to think in my opinion. I think this is evidenced by Obama being able to do stuff, even in a lame duck.

I don't think it matters the actual split level but more what we think the level is.  All it would take is a large enough group of one side to start attacking the other, I think.
Of course the USA is full of less ... idealistic people these days so it could just boil down to most people saying "I don't wanna get involved".

us population to wacked on pills and face book to ever get physical en mass

There's one thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on:

He criminally abused the office of President?

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2011, 12:41:04 PM

There's one thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on:

He criminally abused the office of President?

Yeah, that too, I suppose. He did do some pretty terrible things.

Like what?  Not disagreeing--I wouldn't know--you guys have got me curious now.

Quote from: Benocrates on January 28, 2011, 02:16:37 PM

I don't think the split is geographical enough. Even with red/blue states, there is a great enough mix to prevent that kind of thing.

I don't think you need a geographical split to have a civil war, just enough friction between the ideals.  Friction the Media is all too happy to provide.

I think you do. I don't see how it could unfold in the current climate, unless you drastically redefine civil war. This is all part of post-modern political theory which hasn't been fully clarified yet. Can there really be a cyber war?

Like what?  Not disagreeing--I wouldn't know--you guys have got me curious now.

He used martial law to suspend Habeas Corpus, and when the Supreme Court told him that it was unconstitutional, he tried to arrest the Supreme Court judges.

Quote from: Supertails on January 28, 2011, 10:01:26 PM

Like what?  Not disagreeing--I wouldn't know--you guys have got me curious now.

He used martial law to suspend Habeas Corpus, and when the Supreme Court told him that it was unconstitutional, he tried to arrest the Supreme Court judges.

Source?

http://www.cracked.com/article_16590_6-great-us-presidents-their-crimes-against-humanity.html

As they so eloquently put it: "Abraham Lincoln Screws Habeas Corpus, Never Calls Back"

Clem Vallandigham was not his biggest fan either...

They do claim it is based on true history?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

http://www.cracked.com/article_16590_6-great-us-presidents-their-crimes-against-humanity.html

As they so eloquently put it: "Abraham Lincoln Screws Habeas Corpus, Never Calls Back"

Oh man, totally forgot about that article.

Respect for epic-bearded man:  -55. 
Respect for man's epic beard:  Same. 

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt are often targets of conservatives.  They certainly have shortcomings, but they do not have any more than other american presidents and these two have many good points which cannot be truly be said of all american presidents.

Lincoln corresponded with Karl Marx on several occasions, and he did take the correct side in the war reguardless of what people say about his motives.  The confederacy began the civil war by its actions at Fort Sumpter.

THE CIVIL WAR WAS VERY MUCH FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY.  That was not the only reason, but as far as many people both then and now were concerned it was far and away the primary reason.  The popularity of the concept that "the civil war was not fought over slavery" has paralleled the decline of the civil rights movement generation and become such a proverb in the last few decades that it violates the truth.  That contrary idea was not always the conventional wisdom, and it certainly reinforces confederate propaganda.  Slavery was very much an issue at the time, and the Union most definitely did use slavery as one of its justifications and propaganda for the war reguardless of ulterior motives. 

The same situation reoccurs with Roosevelt's war with Nazi Germany in WWII. 

Why aren't anti-communists like Harry Truman or pro-slavery colonialists like John Tyler held to ridicule as perennially as Lincoln?  The Lincoln-as-hypocrite argument is as old and boring as its racist inspired agenda is transparent.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16590_6-great-us-presidents-their-crimes-against-humanity.html

As they so eloquently put it: "Abraham Lincoln Screws Habeas Corpus, Never Calls Back"

That article neglects to mention any context and in particular says nothing at all about the character of Lincoln's intended victim, the inimitable Roger Taney:

Roger Taney, a papist, was the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1836 to 1864.  'He is most remembered for delivering the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), that ruled, among other things, that African Americans, being considered "of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race" at the time the Constitution was drafted, could not be considered citizens of the United States."'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney

Although not from United States therefore history tended to gloss over what happened down there except along the lines of how it affected my country, I have always found it somewhat cynical that a nation built on secession would so vehemently deny it's own the same rights.  I think slavery had very little to do with the beginnings of the war - at least from what I've researched over time.  The Emancipation Proclamation occured 5 months after the beginnings of the war and was as much a tool to keep European countries at bay by promoting a "liberation" of a peoples.

Also the US's demand on restricting trade to the CSA from other countries even though it was part of the reasons for the war of 1812 -

In 1807, Britain introduced a series of trade restrictions to impede on-going American trade with France, with which Britain was at war. The U.S. contested these restrictions as illegal under international law.

Wiki
- also quite farcical.

As for the states and their reasons for joining the second world war - a lot of bloodshed could have been avoided if they actually joined in on time.  Fashionably late is not really something that should occur during a war.

Berny
Thinks 17 Nov should explain his name

As for the states and their reasons for joining the second world war - a lot of bloodshed could have been avoided if they actually joined in on time.  Fashionably late is not really something that should occur during a war.

On time? You mean 1935 when the Treaty of Versailles was first violated?  That would have been a little difficult, don't you think, as the US refused to ratify that treaty?  Nobody bothered to be 'on time.'

Quote from: berny_74 on February 06, 2011, 08:30:02 AM

As for the states and their reasons for joining the second world war - a lot of bloodshed could have been avoided if they actually joined in on time.  Fashionably late is not really something that should occur during a war.

On time? You mean 1935 when the Treaty of Versailles was first violated?  That would have been a little difficult, don't you think, as the US refused to ratify that treaty?  Nobody bothered to be 'on time.'

An interesting fact about World War One relating to media censorship engendered dissemination of false opinions and even entire misguided political movements including the early popularity of Nazism was revealed by the great journalist George Seldes:

'At end of the war, he obtained an exclusive interview with Paul von Hindenburg, the supreme commander of the German Army, in which Hindenburg acknowledged the role America had played in defeating Germany. "The American infantry," said Hindenburg, "won the World War in battle in the Argonne." Seldes and the others were accused of breaking the Armistice and were court martialed. They were also forbidden to write anything about the interview and it never appeared in American news media. Seldes believed that blocking the interview proved tragic. Unaware of Hindenburg's direct testimony of Germany's military defeat, Germans adopted the Dolchstoss or "stab-in-the-back" theory that Germany only lost because it was betrayed at home by "the socialists, the Communists and the Jews," which served as Nazism's explanation for Germany's defeat. "If the Hindenburg interview had been passed by Pershing's censors at the time, it would have been headlined in every country civilized enough to have newspapers and undoubtedly would have made an impression on millions of people and became an important page in history," wrote Seldes. "I believe it would have destroyed the main planks on which Hitler rose to power, it would have prevented World War II, the greatest and worst war in all history, and it would have changed the future of all mankind."'

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

Pershing, if I remember my history, wasn't fond of the date of the Armistice and thought the war should continue until Germany was forced to recognize defeat and would be unable to think of it as a draw.  Perhaps I've misremembered.

Edit:
A Surrender was what he had in mind.

Goerge Seldes (1890-1995)

The lifespans of Seldes and several other like minded persons continually reminds me of Alexander Cockburn's proverb (from 'The Death of the Fourth Estate' about journalists who have been around for decades:  
"If you want to live past 100 years in a good health, then it helps to have been a communist."

Pershing, if I remember my history, wasn't fond of the date of the Armistice and thought the war should continue until Germany was forced to recognize defeat and would be unable to think of it as a draw.  Perhaps I've misremembered.

Edit:
A Surrender was what he had in mind.

I am no expert on World War One, but what you remember sounds in accordance with the facts.

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt are often targets of conservatives.  They certainly have shortcomings, but they do not have any more than other american presidents and these two have many good points which cannot be truly be said of all american presidents.

Lincoln corresponded with Karl Marx on several occasions, and he did take the correct side in the war reguardless of what people say about his motives.  The confederacy began the civil war by its actions at Fort Sumpter.

THE CIVIL WAR WAS VERY MUCH FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY.  That was not the only reason, but as far as many people both then and now were concerned it was far and away the primary reason.  The popularity of the concept that "the civil war was not fought over slavery" has paralleled the decline of the civil rights movement generation and become such a proverb in the last few decades that it violates the truth.  That contrary idea was not always the conventional wisdom, and it certainly reinforces confederate propaganda.  Slavery was very much an issue at the time, and the Union most definitely did use slavery as one of its justifications and propaganda for the war reguardless of ulterior motives. 

The same situation reoccurs with Roosevelt's war with Nazi Germany in WWII. 

Why aren't anti-communists like Harry Truman or pro-slavery colonialists like John Tyler held to ridicule as perennially as Lincoln?  The Lincoln-as-hypocrite argument is as old and boring as its racist inspired agenda is transparent.

Read the OP. Also, I'm a liberal.

Let's Argue About Lincoln!

He was a good dude.

http://vimeo.com/5200312