• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:135] Great book to study The Problem with Lincoln

“The bloodiest four years in American history begin when Confederate shore batteries under General P.G.T. Beauregard open fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Bay. During the next 34 hours, 50 Confederate guns and mortars launched more than 4,000 rounds at the poorly supplied fort. On April 13, U.S. Major Robert Anderson surrendered the fort.”

www.history.com

U.S. Civil War Begins

The bloodiest four years in American history begin when Confederate shore batteries under General P.G.T. Beauregard open fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Bay. The Civil War lasted four years.
www.history.com www.history.com

Sure sounds like an act of war to attack a fort belonging to the United States.
 
“The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries.”

www.battlefields.org

A Brief Overview of the American Civil War

The Civil War of 1861-1865 determined what kind of nation the United States would be.
www.battlefields.org www.battlefields.org

Let’s take a look at that last sentence again: “The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries.“

And thus it was the prescience of President Lincoln in realizing the importance of preserving the Union so as to prevent the mid-continent in becoming just a group of Balkanized nations with the real possibility of ongoing and unending wars such as Europe over the centuries. He thus made perhaps the most important decision in the history of the United States in deciding the future of the nation and the continent.
 
Robertinfremont said:
You finally admit Democrats are the slave party. I accept your concession

All you are trying to do is stop talking about your favorite book ... The Problem with Lincoln.
Click to expand...

And now the Republicans are the party that wants to make blacks slaves again, and are the party of Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists.

Republicans should return to their Lincoln roots and oppose racism, not fuel it.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Republicans waged war to free slaves. Slaves owned by Democrats.
Click to expand...

And now its the Republicans waving the Confederate flag and trying to protect traitor Confederate statues and monuments.

Ironic huh?
 
This thread is a classic example of taking something from history, judging it again within the confines of today’s standards, all in an effort to rewrite history.

Lincoln presented a number of problems for historians to argue about, the OP’s idea is not one of them.
 
Robertinfremont said:
If that were true, he sure kept it a secret for some years into his war of aggression. Also he ignored slaves in the Union.
Click to expand...

Thats cause almost all slaves were south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Folks in the North had the honesty and moral integrity to BAN slavery decades before the Civil War. Most Northern states banned slavery by 1821.
 
watsup said:
“The bloodiest four years in American history begin when Confederate shore batteries under General P.G.T. Beauregard open fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Bay. During the next 34 hours, 50 Confederate guns and mortars launched more than 4,000 rounds at the poorly supplied fort. On April 13, U.S. Major Robert Anderson surrendered the fort.”

www.history.com

U.S. Civil War Begins

The bloodiest four years in American history begin when Confederate shore batteries under General P.G.T. Beauregard open fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Bay. The Civil War lasted four years.
www.history.com www.history.com

Sure sounds like an act of war to attack a fort belonging to the United States.
Click to expand...

Lincoln intended to provoke a war, which is why he copied his predecessor Buchanan's actions in attempting to blockade that port; he got what he wanted out of it. Blockading ports is considered an act of war around the wold, and attempting to extort money from ships coming in and out is just piracy. Lincoln was upset that the Confederacy's 10% tariffs would make his ridiculously high protectionist tariffs a failure and allow southern govts. to dominate the western trade and Mississippi river trade. He said so, which is how we know why he started the war and rejected the delegation from Virginia.

Again, not a single shred of evidence for the belief that secession was in any way prohibited, and in fact Madison's rejection of using Federal military against any state is clear and not debatable.
 
Sietske22 said:
Thats cause almost all slaves were south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Folks in the North had the honesty and moral integrity to BAN slavery decades before the Civil War. Most Northern states banned slavery by 1821.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. it was just a matter of money; the seasonal nature of the northern economy left workers idle for months, and employers didn't want to feed them year round, especially since there were always new immigrants flooding in every year to keep the slums full of starving workers. As for the Midwest, the terrain allowed for machinery technology to replace a lot of casual labor. There are several studies of this over at EH.net, and some have been compiled in a book on the 19th century economy and the effects of mass immigration, and there is a travel diary by the famous abolitionist Fredrick Law Omstead about his trip to Texas through the south that has eyewitness accounts of the different treatments of slaves compared to the treatment of 'free' white labor, mostly poor German and
Irish, the latter who built the river levees and whose skeletons are buried by the 10's of thousands where they dropped dead in those levees.
 
Closer said:
Rubbish. it was just a matter of money; the seasonal nature of the northern economy left workers idle for months, and employers didn't want to feed them year round, especially since there were always new immigrants flooding in every year to keep the slums full of starving workers. As for the Midwest, the terrain allowed for machinery technology to replace a lot of casual labor. There are several studies of this over at EH.net, and some have been compiled in a book on the 19th century economy and the effects of mass immigration, and there is a travel diary by the famous abolitionist Fredrick Law Omstead about his trip to Texas through the south that has eyewitness accounts of the different treatments of slaves compared to the treatment of 'free' white labor, mostly poor German and
Irish, the latter who built the river levees and whose skeletons are buried by the 10's of thousands where they dropped dead in those levees.
Click to expand...

The South fired 4000 rounds at Fort Sumter, a clear act of war. Lincoln had no choice.
 
Closer said:
Rubbish. it was just a matter of money; the seasonal nature of the northern economy left workers idle for months, and employers didn't want to feed them year round, especially since there were always new immigrants flooding in every year to keep the slums full of starving workers. As for the Midwest, the terrain allowed for machinery technology to replace a lot of casual labor. There are several studies of this over at EH.net, and some have been compiled in a book on the 19th century economy and the effects of mass immigration, and there is a travel diary by the famous abolitionist Fredrick Law Omstead about his trip to Texas through the south that has eyewitness accounts of the different treatments of slaves compared to the treatment of 'free' white labor, mostly poor German and
Irish, the latter who built the river levees and whose skeletons are buried by the 10's of thousands where they dropped dead in those levees.
Click to expand...

So the plantation owners treated the slaves well? Is breaking up a family to sell slaves okay with you?
 
Closer said:
Rubbish. it was just a matter of money; the seasonal nature of the northern economy left workers idle for months, and employers didn't want to feed them year round, especially since there were always new immigrants flooding in every year to keep the slums full of starving workers. As for the Midwest, the terrain allowed for machinery technology to replace a lot of casual labor. There are several studies of this over at EH.net, and some have been compiled in a book on the 19th century economy and the effects of mass immigration, and there is a travel diary by the famous abolitionist Fredrick Law Omstead about his trip to Texas through the south that has eyewitness accounts of the different treatments of slaves compared to the treatment of 'free' white labor, mostly poor German and
Irish, the latter who built the river levees and whose skeletons are buried by the 10's of thousands where they dropped dead in those levees.
Click to expand...

Show a source for your last statement about the Irish on the levees.
 
watsup said:
So the plantation owners treated the slaves well? Is breaking up a family to sell slaves okay with you?
Click to expand...

Doesn't have anything to do with starting the Civil War, it's just strawmen you invented to make yourself feel like history should be some sort of morality play.
 
watsup said:
The South fired 4000 rounds at Fort Sumter, a clear act of war. Lincoln had no choice.
Click to expand...

So what? Blockading a port is an act of war, and extorting payments from foreign ships is piracy. And yes, Lincoln had a choice, and decided on war over protectionist tariffs for his railroad cronies.

Still waiting for any evidence secession was illegal. We already have plenty of proof of Lincoln's motives, and we also know the north didn't have the morals some are claiming here re black people, so stop being silly; Lincoln and the north didn't mind slavery in the south, they made lots of money off of it themselves.
 
Closer said:
Doesn't have anything to do with starting the Civil War, it's just strawmen you invented to make yourself feel like history should be some sort of morality play.
Click to expand...

You are the brought up the Irish. What does that have to do with starting the Civil War?
Closer said:
Already did.
Click to expand...

No, you did not. You merely mentioned it as if it was fact. There was no source, and we simply do not believe anything that a right-winger posts without an accompanying source.
 
Closer said:
So what? Blockading a port is an act of war, and extorting payments from foreign ships is piracy. And yes, Lincoln had a choice, and decided on war over protectionist tariffs for his railroad cronies.

Still waiting for any evidence secession was illegal. We already have plenty of proof of Lincoln's motives, and we also know the north didn't have the morals some are claiming here re black people, so stop being silly; Lincoln and the north didn't mind slavery in the south, they made lots of money off of it themselves.
Click to expand...


The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. The Union blockade of he ports began AFTER that.
Like I said, we simply cannot trust anything a right-winger says.
And no one has ever said that the war had anything to do with slavery, per se. Why do you keep strawmanning that?
 
Closer said:
Lincoln intended to provoke a war, which is why he copied his predecessor Buchanan's actions in attempting to blockade that port; he got what he wanted out of it. Blockading ports is considered an act of war around the wold, and attempting to extort money from ships coming in and out is just piracy. Lincoln was upset that the Confederacy's 10% tariffs would make his ridiculously high protectionist tariffs a failure and allow southern govts. to dominate the western trade and Mississippi river trade. He said so, which is how we know why he started the war and rejected the delegation from Virginia.

Again, not a single shred of evidence for the belief that secession was in any way prohibited, and in fact Madison's rejection of using Federal military against any state is clear and not debatable.
Click to expand...

South Carolina had formally ceded all right to Fort Sumter years earlier; they had no right to dictate where US soldiers were stationed on US government property. Lincoln did not force the South Carolinans(who, by the way, were itching for war) to open fire on US soldiers.....which, by the way, is also considered an act of war.


It’s amusing watching you cling to the delusion that the war was fought over “tariffs“ and “for the railroad barons”; first off, Karl Marx himself, no fan of crony capitalism(to say the least) emphatically supported the Union war effort; secondly, you conveniently ignore the fact that the South explicitly stated they were going to war to save slavery.
 
The anti-Lincolnites hate that the North instituted a progressive income tax; they never bother to complain that the Confederacy did the same. They hate that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; they never note that Jefferson Davis did, too. They hate that the North resorted to a draft; they don't care that the Confederacy also had one. They hate that Lincoln fought a war against his countrymen; it evidently never occurs to them that Jefferson Davis shot back (let alone that he fired the first shot).


Rich Lowry Historian and editor of the National Review
 
swing_voter said:
The anti-Lincolnites hate that the North instituted a progressive income tax; they never bother to complain that the Confederacy did the same. They hate that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; they never note that Jefferson Davis did, too. They hate that the North resorted to a draft; they don't care that the Confederacy also had one. They hate that Lincoln fought a war against his countrymen; it evidently never occurs to them that Jefferson Davis shot back (let alone that he fired the first shot).


Rich Lowry Historian and editor of the National Review
Click to expand...

The South has a problem in being a “confederacy” in that Jefferson Davis could not demand of the governors to furnish a certain amount of soldiers because the FEDERAL government did not have control over them like Lincoln did of the UNITED States. As a result, there was a lot of corruption and a lot of difficulty in getting gjt governors to comply.
 
Closer said:
Doesn't have anything to do with starting the Civil War, it's just strawmen you invented to make yourself feel like history should be some sort of morality play.
Click to expand...

Lol no, the South explicitly stated that they were going to war to try and save slavery. That is why they seceded. The facts hurting your feelings doesn’t change them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom