Abe Lincoln is a hypocrite

[middleagedgamer]

I'm not talking about his owning slaves but wanting to abolish slavery. That notion has been played to death. I'm talking about the way he treated the south in the Civil War.

Lincoln said that the states had no right to ceseed from the Union. The irony here is that the South was only doing what the Founding Fathers did when they themselves ceseeded from the British Empire! I'm not trying to justify slavery by any means; I'm just saying that that wouldn't have even been Lincoln's decision to make had the Founding Fathers not done the exact same thing four score and seven years prior.

Discuss.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

Lincoln was not a founding father. If his views differ from theirs that is not hypocracy

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

And I'm not sure the founding fathers would have agreed that states could seccede from the union after joining it, or at least after ratifying the constitution. The Constitution itself contains no provisions for allowing states to withdraw. Is there any authority that the founders had that intent?

 

[middleagedgamer]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

Lincoln was not a founding father. If his views differ from theirs that is not hypocracy

Maybe hipocracy was the wrong word to use.

Still, if his actions in the Civil War were American policy, then the US should turn itself over to the UK.

You know what I mean. Don't pretend you don't because I know better.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

And I'm not sure the founding fathers would have agreed that states could seccede from the union after joining it, or at least after ratifying the constitution. The Constitution itself contains no provisions for allowing states to withdraw. Is there any authority that the founders had that intent?

In that case, the Founding Fathers are hypocrits.

EDIT: If it's against the rules to double post, can someone merge these two posts together, because I haven't gotten the hang of quoting two people in one post.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

Maybe hipocracy was the wrong word to use.

Still, if his actions in the Civil War were American policy, then the US should turn itself over to the UK.

You know what I mean. Don't pretend you don't because I know better.

You do have a point. Why should not a section of a nation that wants to withdraw from the rest be able to do so? We have defended other groups in that situation, ie South Vietnam from North Vietnam, and more recently, autonomy for the Kurds in Iraq.

There are differences between the Revolutionary war and the civil war. The colonies were not part of the UK, and didn't have represenation in the government.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

Maybe hipocracy was the wrong word to use.

Still, if his actions in the Civil War were American policy, then the US should turn itself over to the UK.

You know what I mean. Don't pretend you don't because I know better.

I was responding to what you posted. If you meant something different, post that.

The fact that a nation arises due to revolution does not mean that it endorses all revolution everywhere, especially within its own borders.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

In that case, the Founding Fathers are hypocrits.

EDIT: If it's against the rules to double post, can someone merge these two posts together, because I haven't gotten the hang of quoting two people in one post.

not quite hypocrits.
IN that the colonies never had a choice whether or not they wanted to be a part of the British empire, they were just expected to pay royalties to the british empire without any proper representation and that was that.
But when they joined the union it was by choice.
Then again it must be asked did they really have any choice and it doesn't seem like they did - I mean what was the alternative? The Republic of Carolina's?
But it still wouldn't make the founding fathers hypocrites because they were setting to create a new nation based on an ideology of freedom and democracy. Cecession it would seem should be allowed.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

not quite hypocrits.
IN that the colonies never had a choice whether or not they wanted to be a part of the British empire, they were just expected to pay royalties to the british empire without any proper representation and that was that.
But when they joined the union it was by choice.
Then again it must be asked did they really have any choice and it doesn't seem like they did - I mean what was the alternative? The Republic of Carolina's?
But it still wouldn't make the founding fathers hypocrites because they were setting to create a new nation based on an ideology of freedom and democracy. Cecession it would seem should be allowed.

You managed to disagree with me and agree with me in the same post.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

You managed to disagree with me and agree with me in the same post.

like that? lol:2wave:

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

There's nothing to suggest that the Framers considered the Union to be anything other than permanent and indivisible.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

There's nothing to suggest that the Framers considered the Union to be anything other than permanent and indivisible.

How do you suppose that? What evidence do you have to back that up?

 

[the makeout hobo]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

How do you suppose that? What evidence do you have to back that up?

Firstly, Lincoln never had slaves, going back to your original point.

Secondly, there's nothing in the Constitution or the writings of the founding fathers saying that they considered the union divisible or anything but permanent. Since its impossible to prove a negative, it's on you to prove otherwise.

Thirdly, the south was hypocritical. Note that they did not willingly let West Virginia leave the confederacy.

Are you by chance a white supremecist?

 

[middleagedgamer]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

Firstly, Lincoln never had slaves, going back to your original point.

That's irrelevant to this entire topic.

Secondly, there's nothing in the Constitution or the writings of the founding fathers saying that they considered the union divisible or anything but permanent. Since its impossible to prove a negative, it's on you to prove otherwise.

Still, there's no language in the Constitution that mentioned the union being indivisible. There's no language about the divisibility of the union, or lack thereof, at all. The only evidence either way is that they themselves seseeded from the British Empire.

Thirdly, the south was hypocritical. Note that they did not willingly let West Virginia leave the confederacy.

I never said they weren't. Stop changing the subject.

 

[Doc Howl]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

I'm not talking about his owning slaves but wanting to abolish slavery.

Lincoln never owned slaves.

 

[Doc Howl]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

I give this thread 4 trolls, on a scale of 5.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

I give this thread 4 trolls, on a scale of 5.

Moderator's Warning:

Knock off the personal attacks...and the trolling, Doc.

 

[Joby]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

It's a very good thing we did not allow the South to secede. I dislike any power grab by the government, but Lincoln's seizure of executive authority was absolutely necessary. This includes decalring martial law in Maryland, suspending habeas corpus in several places, and crushing the South in the last few years of the war.

Had the Confederacy won out, we would have been faced with the very real possibility of cycling through war after war, as was the case in Europe (until we conquered it).

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

In that case, the Founding Fathers are hypocrits.

EDIT: If it's against the rules to double post, can someone merge these two posts together, because I haven't gotten the hang of quoting two people in one post.

Actually, that's not hypocritical.

The founding fathers were willing to battle against a greater enemy, toil with their sweat and blood, to win their freedom. They did not expect Britian to just roll over and go "Alright, you all can leave".

Why is it hypocritical for the founding fathers not to put in a provision that would cause others in the future to be able to leave a union of some kind with that union going "Alright, you can just leave" and roll over instead of having to fight, sweat, bleed, and EARN that freedom IF its legitimate?

This is the thing that infuriates me with the typical internet twerp that complains about the big mean government not letting people do over the top protesting or acts against the government, saying the founding fathers would be ashamed. Bull****, the founding fathers would be ashamed that you expect to be able to just do it and the government should just capitulate. That's not what they had to do, nor how they set up the country to do.

What they DID do is give us the provisions to rebel if we felt a government was corrupt, but they never said that said corrupt government is somehow beholden to go "Up, well, they're rebelling. Time to just say 'okay, we do whatever you want'"

 

[the makeout hobo]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

That's irrelevant to this entire topic.

Then why'd you bring it up?

Still, there's no language in the Constitution that mentioned the union being indivisible. There's no language about the divisibility of the union, or lack thereof, at all. The only evidence either way is that they themselves seseeded from the British Empire.

But the difference is that the colonies had no representation, while the south had overrepresentation, due to the 3/5 compromise. The argument could also be made that the states had no right to secede since the constitution was a compact entered in by "we the people of the united states of America", not "we the states", the union could only be dissolved or divided by "we the people of the united states of america" (say, congress), and not "we the states (say, South Carolina)

 

[middleagedgamer]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

Actually, that's not hypocritical.

The founding fathers were willing to battle against a greater enemy, toil with their sweat and blood, to win their freedom. They did not expect Britian to just roll over and go "Alright, you all can leave".

Actually, they did. The Founding Fathers sent two petitions, known today as the First and Second Continental Congresses, urging the King to step in and fix their grievances. The second time, they warned him that if he did not fix the grievances within one year, they would rebel. They gave the King ample time to do this peacefully.

It's you who is the "internet twerp." You obviously have no knowledge of history whatsoever.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

Maybe hipocracy was the wrong word to use.

Still, if his actions in the Civil War were American policy, then the US should turn itself over to the UK.

You know what I mean. Don't pretend you don't because I know better.

We don't know what you mean unless you state it clearly and without contradiction.

Actually, they did. The Founding Fathers sent two petitions, known today as the First and Second Continental Congresses, urging the King to step in and fix their grievances. The second time, they warned him that if he did not fix the grievances within one year, they would rebel. They gave the King ample time to do this peacefully.

It's you who is the "internet twerp." You obviously have no knowledge of history whatsoever.

I sincerely think that you should re-read his statements with an open mind and let the internet twirp thing go, for his assessment is right on the money here bro!

Originally Posted by Harshaw
There's nothing to suggest that the Framers considered the Union to be anything other than permanent and indivisible.

Perfectly said. Starting to like your style Harshaw...

Oh, and middleagegamer... what backs his position is the US Constitution in addition to comments by the Founding Fathers themselves.

 

[American]

I'm not talking about his owning slaves but wanting to abolish slavery. That notion has been played to death. I'm talking about the way he treated the south in the Civil War.

Lincoln said that the states had no right to ceseed from the Union. The irony here is that the South was only doing what the Founding Fathers did when they themselves ceseeded from the British Empire! I'm not trying to justify slavery by any means; I'm just saying that that wouldn't have even been Lincoln's decision to make had the Founding Fathers not done the exact same thing four score and seven years prior.

Discuss.

I didn't realize that Lincoln owned slaves.

 

[Lightdemon]

Lincoln did not own slaves. But he was no abolitionist either, at least not from the beginning. In that regard, I agree with the OP.

Lincoln is not a hypocrite, no. But too much credit is given to him for freeing the slaves.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Abe Lincoln is a hypocrit.

How do you suppose that? What evidence do you have to back that up?

Because they didn't provide a mechanism for withdrawal, nor is there anything in any of their writings and statements on the matter which indicate that they thought it was not permanent.