Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast!


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
  • Pages:
  • 1
Abraham Lincoln; Great Leader or Tyrant?
Topic Started: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:43 pm (327 Views)
DeMaGoG
Level 23
So if any of you didn't know, the civil war was an illegal war! That's right, illegal. See the southern states succeeded from the union because they felt they were misrepresented in the government and feared they would eventually lose their ways of life. Lincoln's election was the final straw to this, so the southern states withdrew from the union (if you didn't know Lincoln won all the union states, he didn't need any of the southern states).

Many believe that it was illegal for the confederate states to succeed from the union like this, and that this justified the war. This is entirely untrue. In fact, around the time of Lincoln's innaugaration, one union senator proposed a bill which would declare succession illegal. The fore-fathers would never have allowed this, seeing as it is a very "American" idea to want freedom from oppression, which is what the south wanted. Lincoln later wanted to pass this bill but he was told not to by his advisors since the American people would then ask why the war had happened if succession wasn't illegal in the first place (they would be very pissed since so many loved ones died in the war).

The real reason behind the war was land. Lincoln did not want to lose the land that provided so much economic growth to the country. The excuse of freeing the slaves was an idea the union leaders later came up with to help hide the real reason for the war.

So does this change anyone's view of Lincoln? He's now my least favorite president. I could be living in the Confederate States of America! Has a nice ring to it doesn't it? :-p
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Geofari
Level 13
if im not mistaken, lincoln did not go to war immediately. the war began over a fort that the south was embargoing? fort sumter i think. the fort was very low on supplies and lincoln decided to resupply it. thats when the south attacked: the south took the first strike. it was only in lincoln's constitutional responsibilities and best interest to go to war; as the president, he is charged with foreign affairs and if he did not avenge fort sumter, he would lose a lot of face among the people. did congress pass the war in the house? i dont remember
im sure lincoln did it over land but more over pride. he was elected president over the entire united states and to have it half-ripped away really damages your cojones.
did the south split in the first place over a tax dispute? as in, the south wanted to lower taxes so that their products could be sold? the economy usually causes disputes anyways.

lincoln is one of my favorite presidents. i know that he did not order the emancipation proclamation out of the goodness of his heart, but he did it anyways and thats what matters.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FaZ-
Level 39
Please take a US History class. Figure out why the southern states sEceded, and you'll have the reason why the war occurred. The South were far from being oppressed in Congress, to be honest they were probably vastly overrepresented, because the slaves whose population was counting for representatives sure as hell didn't have much of a say in the laws. They did fear losing their "way of life" ... that way being oppressing people of a different skin color.

Land was a minor issue. With the Emancipation Proclamation, a good deal of the revenue from the south was voided anyway. Whether secession is illegal or not depends on your interpretation of the constitution.

Also: a war can't be "illegal" when the group ordering the war is the same one who determines whether a war is justified.

I'll assume you read a narrative from the Confederate stance.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Geofari
Level 13
was that directed at me? :o
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Sarge
Member Avatar
Hacker Hunter
Geofari
Feb 26 2008, 08:37 PM
was that directed at me?  :o

No, I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

And I agree with FaZ.. A war cannot be 'illegal'. lol..
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
DeMaGoG
Level 23
Lol -Faz, I learned that in my US History class, there are even books going into more detail about what I said. Also, a war can be illegal if it violates the constitution, which the civil war did. Go take a government class -Faz. Also, slaves were given 1/3 of a vote (that fraction might be off but I'm pretty sure it is 1/3) so that didn't help the south's voting power enough to effect anything. Also, there were northern state's with slaves (states that didn't secceed). And if the south were overrepresented, then how could Lincoln have won the election if he didn't win any of the southern states? That in itself is solid proof that the north had more power than the south in the national government.


Geofari if I remember right, they don't know if the north or south fired the first shot, so there is no telling who really started the war.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
ToXiCiTy
Member Avatar
Level 11
It's been years since I went through school on this subject, but again I am almost positive what has already been stated is true. No, not by the OP but the replies refuting what he has said.

Again, I haven't been through it in years so please do excuse any misinformation, I'm making a post based off of the best of my memory.

I am almost positive that the war was in-fact begun by the Confederate States. Yes, they seceded from the US but not for any reason in general, it was more or less for States' law to be recognized. Any law they passed would be overshadowed by one passed in Congress thus nullifying the law. The secession was was over state law and nothing more, the various reasons might be things like taxing and slavery but that is more or less in the wider picture of the scene, we're talking about why they seceded as well as why the war started.

Again, I am almost positive that the Confederate states started the war. I wont say much more on this because I need to go and read up on it first before I go any further.

Also, pick up a few more books and read them, DeMaGoG, you'll find that not only one book holds all the facts and that some of the facts taught to you are false.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
DeMaGoG
Level 23
Well, I'll believe what I want to. Besides, this is what our professor teaches, and seeing as he is a professor, I'm pretty inclined to believe him. *shrug* Also, why would the south start the war? They had nothing to gain by starting a war, and they hadn't lost anything. The north however, would certainly have wanted back their lost land. It makes much more sense that the north would start the war, even if the south fired the first shot.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FaZ-
Level 39
A professor at what college, and where was he raised? There are many confederate sympathetics around still, but you'll find few where I am in Massachusetts. They are generally gun-toting rednecks who still consider blacks inferior.

The USA was evolving to abolish slavery, like many developed countries had already chosen to do. The South recognized this, and chose to secede in order to assure that they would be able to keep slavery legal. If you look at the Confederate States' constitution, you'll find it's almost identical to the United States', except for the assurance that slavery will remain legal. The North wasn't having any of this, and the rest of the world agreed. Hence the war.

The South had plenty to lose, and so they took a risk. Your professor is a biased fool if he doesn't recognize that truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Skywalker
Level 18
DeMaGoG
Feb 26 2008, 03:43 AM
So if any of you didn't know, the civil war was an illegal war! That's right, illegal. See the southern states succeeded from the union because they felt they were misrepresented in the government and feared they would eventually lose their ways of life. Lincoln's election was the final straw to this, so the southern states withdrew from the union (if you didn't know Lincoln won all the union states, he didn't need any of the southern states).

Many believe that it was illegal for the confederate states to succeed from the union like this, and that this justified the war. This is entirely untrue. In fact, around the time of Lincoln's innaugaration, one union senator proposed a bill which would declare succession illegal. The fore-fathers would never have allowed this, seeing as it is a very "American" idea to want freedom from oppression, which is what the south wanted. Lincoln later wanted to pass this bill but he was told not to by his advisors since the American people would then ask why the war had happened if succession wasn't illegal in the first place (they would be very pissed since so many loved ones died in the war).

The real reason behind the war was land. Lincoln did not want to lose the land that provided so much economic growth to the country. The excuse of freeing the slaves was an idea the union leaders later came up with to help hide the real reason for the war.

So does this change anyone's view of Lincoln? He's now my least favorite president. I could be living in the Confederate States of America! Has a nice ring to it doesn't it? :-p

All biases aside, I just want to say this is the DUMBEST argument I have ever heard. And there's my opinion, nothing will change that. Lincoln still remains one of my favorite presidents, nuff said. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
DeMaGoG
Level 23
Why is it so dumb baseball? Just curious., 'cuz it makes perfect sense to me.

Faz go look at this, http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Sout..._from_the_Union , you'll see that there are many conflicting views on the reason for secession. Also, the book I was referring to is called The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War or if you don't wanna look at that just google: lincoln tyrant illegal war. Or put in your own search words. Feel free to tell me what to google or read.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FaZ-
Level 39
"The Civil War"

You're reading biased results, you can find someone who disagrees with just about anything if you try hard enough. Just because a person can make it eloquent doesn't make it logical, but it makes people who can't analyze texts themselves lap it up anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Geofari
Level 13
i wouldnt rely on just one textbook
everybody has a different opinion about these things
and the real experts never write them for one major reason: scrutiny among their field. these authors are so pressured by their colleagues because they have to write these books just the right way to not be criticized. and there are a good amount of experts in history. there was a book about why american history is incorrect, or unclear, about some topics.
for example: FDR
if you think his ethics were so great, you are wrong. history books leave out the part about him being a total racist.
all in all, you should look over more than one source, even if it is your teacher.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
ToXiCiTy
Member Avatar
Level 11
Quote:
 
Well, I'll believe what I want to. Besides, this is what our professor teaches, and seeing as he is a professor, I'm pretty inclined to believe him. *shrug* Also, why would the south start the war? They had nothing to gain by starting a war, and they hadn't lost anything. The north however, would certainly have wanted back their lost land. It makes much more sense that the north would start the war, even if the south fired the first shot.


Believe what you want to believe, that's what the majority if the US does and look at the average intelligence of the common citizen. I have a person I am associated with due to my sister who's like this. We got into an argument several years ago over Global Warming. I told her it was happening and quoted of several facts about the situation, things I had learned from various sources which all stated the same thing thus leading me to believe it is the factual info. She disagreed with me and claimed it wasn't happening and that I was, for lack of better words, 'lying' to her about the whole thing. That I was wrong and she was right because there was no possible way for it to be happening, it was all hearsay. Not but half a year later it hits the news nationwide that Global Warming is happening.

Want to know what her stance still is to this day? It's all a lie and that's what she wants to believe because she would rather be wrong then accept the fact that she wasn't right. That's what this will end up turning into, "I think he did it so since I think that you're all wrong and I'm allowed to have my opinion."

The fact of the matter is Lincoln was far from a tyrant. You want a tyrant? Take Stalin, there's one for you. What about Saddam? Or, let's not forget all of the many rulers of ancient Rome. Those men were tyrants, not a man whose goal was to abolish slavery. You said that it was an illegal war because it was fueled by oppression. Tell me, for the sake of the argument, what was the main cause of the war? Wasn't it the oppression of blacks an even greater oppression than the one that the war was 'supposedly' started over? I'm sorry but if I was in your position I'd still think that slavery - not the war itself - is a far greater oppression and thus is more justified in abolishment by means of war.

Also being a professor means nothing. I could go in today and pass a test to get a teaching license and from there move on to a High School teaching level until I was able to build a resume and apply at a college. It's not hard at all, I know a few people who are less knowledgeable than I am and have that exact job or close to it. Again, all it takes is reading a book and becoming proficient in that form of teaching. Unless the man is a master in the area that deals with the study of the Civil War and Lincoln's relation to it I'm quite sure reading more than one book would do you some good. Again, a lot of conspiracy theories evolve from nothing and a lot of things are pulled out of one's ass when documentaries are written. I've seen far more BS in books about stuff that went on 'behind closed doors' throughout history then I have on a daytime soap. I remember an old saying "Take everything you hear with a grain of salt."

It means to not believe all you hear as the truth, pretty much.

Quote:
 
Why is it so dumb baseball? Just curious., 'cuz it makes perfect sense to me.

Faz go look at this, http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Sout..._from_the_Union , you'll see that there are many conflicting views on the reason for secession. Also, the book I was referring to is called The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War or if you don't wanna look at that just google: lincoln tyrant illegal war. Or put in your own search words. Feel free to tell me what to google or read.


So... since it makes perfect sense to you it's the correct way? I'm a pretty logical person, a realist at heart, and the original post makes not a lick of sense to me. In fact its quite possibly the worst scenario I've heard dealing with the Civil War. It's filled to the brim with bias opinions as well as untrustworthy info, not to mention the great amount of conspiracy intertwined with it makes it a great epic tale ready to hit the bookshelves of modern Fiction. Yes, that's pretty much what it all came off to me as - a modern novel of Fiction. Sorry to be so blunt, but I personally think it's horseshit. It makes sense to you, good, now go and relate with other people just like yourself who lack the ability to think for themselves as well as find FACTUAL EVIDENCE of such happenings..

And LULZ at the fact of you linking to Wiki. Of all places you link to the one thing that can be edited by any random Joe Blow with a sense of humor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I knew not one part of Wiki was un-editable. Everything is at the liberty of those who visit the site. Also if I can find it I'll give you the title to a book my uncle used to own, it's about Adolf Hitler and how he was a gentle and caring man, that his 'hate' for the Jews wasn't really hate but the strong sympathy towards a race that would soon meet its end due to the basis of its religion. A religion that would soon make many nations the Jews associated with angered and kill them off in grusome and terrible manners. It spoke of how Adolf was committing genocide of the Jews for their own good and to save them from the unjust treatment other countries would soon commit.

Yes, a very interesting book to read but for all of the bullshit it divulged, I always thought Hitler was a very intelligent dictator whose only goal was to kill those he envied the most - the Jews.'

I think the one common thought among us all is you need to read more books before you go spewing things out like Lincoln being a tyrant. Base what you say off of pure and total fact that way you don't end up looking like some backwaters idiot who doesn't know the aback end of a mule from the front.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
AsSaSsiN
Level 29
StranD
Feb 28 2008, 08:46 PM
Quote:
 
Well, I'll believe what I want to. Besides, this is what our professor teaches, and seeing as he is a professor, I'm pretty inclined to believe him.

rofl@that.

some of my professors have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, don't take their word for it just because they sound like they know alot about it. most of it's bullshit
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Geofari
Level 13
AsSaSsiN
Feb 28 2008, 11:49 PM
StranD
Feb 28 2008, 08:46 PM
Quote:
 
Well, I'll believe what I want to. Besides, this is what our professor teaches, and seeing as he is a professor, I'm pretty inclined to believe him.

rofl@that.

some of my professors have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, don't take their word for it just because they sound like they know alot about it. most of it's bullshit

agreed. they teach based on their own curriculum
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Lintendo
Level 5
Quote:
 
It makes much more sense that the north would start the war, even if the south fired the first shot.
'

wait what??!
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FaZ-
Level 39
I found it incredibly funny that the originator of the topic has hypocritically fallen prey to a namesake.

I don't expect many of you to get this.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Bravo
Helping Women Everywhere Recover From Boring Boyfriends
FaZ-
Feb 29 2008, 12:54 AM
I found it incredibly funny that the originator of the topic has hypocritically fallen prey to a namesake.

I don't expect many of you to get this.

You mean the fact that he is using the name Demagog, meaning that Abraham Lincoln seeked support by appealing to the greater majority and chauvinisms?
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
No, I'm sure he means some other clever observation, which of course only FaZ- is sufficiently astute enough to make. Hail FaZ- and his overwhelming intellect, which us simpletons can do little but gawk at in awe.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic »
  • Pages:
  • 1