The GREAT Presidents...
- Thread starter Larspeart
- Start date
-
- Tags
- presidents
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
What part of Lincoln's illegal and immoral war against the South was good?
The only thing good that came of it was the freeing of the slaves. But I have to say the ends (which wasn't the intention) don't justify the means.
Since we agree that a unified american republic was best suited for dealing with ww1, ww2, and the cold war, we revise history that Lincoln's invasion of the south was a good thing even though it wasn't.
Hey Lincoln, thanks for razing Atlanta to make a better tomorrow buddy!
The only thing good that came of it was the freeing of the slaves. But I have to say the ends (which wasn't the intention) don't justify the means.
Since we agree that a unified american republic was best suited for dealing with ww1, ww2, and the cold war, we revise history that Lincoln's invasion of the south was a good thing even though it wasn't.
Hey Lincoln, thanks for razing Atlanta to make a better tomorrow buddy!
Tony said:
I thought I did... in the TITLE. You know? Where is says 'Presidents'.
If I wanted a list of 'Great Men' or 'Great Persons', I woulda titled the thread as such.
Shane, while I understand your rebukes to Lincoln, I also disagree. I will never believe (nor does anyone but ardent Southern haters-of-the-north) that he causes the Civil War. F--K! It started RIGHT after he went into office. Like, weeks.
Now, picture how many presidents have had to reside over such crisis. I can think of none that come close (Washington didn't preside over a crisis. He was a general at the time of the Big War. I could also rate Washington as one of our greatest generals if i wanted to, but... and pay attention here Tmy... this thread is about presidents). I disagree with a lot of Lincoln's policies, but based on difficulty of term, what was gained, and most importantly, HIS IMPACT ON THE FUTURE/THE WORLD FOR POSTERITY, I gotta rank him pretty damn high, whether you or I like it or not.
I DO like your ranking of Polk as high. I liked Polk too. Most people forget about all but 10-12 presidents, and never bother to count them. i am glad you brought him up.
corplinx said:
Which might be a point if a) Lincoln didn't come up with this "we're waging the war to free the slaves" claim until late in 1862, and b) a war was in any way needed to free the slaves, which it wasn't.
Oh?
Posit:
1) If the Civil War hadn't happened, or if the southern states had gotten what they wanted, we would be more federalist than nationalist; if we did split and stayed separate countries, both countries would have been smaller.
2) If the country was smaller, either literally or in the size of government, we wouldn't have been able to fund WWI, and if we were federalist we most likely wouldn't have even entered the war to begin with.
3) If we hadn't entered WWI, the victory would not have been as decisive, therefore, Britan and the allies wouldn't have been able to pass the horrible Treaty of Versailles; it's also less likely the Russian Revolution would have happened, or if it did, had been a victory for the Communists.
4) Without the Treaty of Versailles, the economic conditions which allowed the Nazis to come to power would not have existed. With no Communism in Russia, no Soviet Union would have been created.
Therefore:
If Lincoln hadn't invaded the Confederacy, then we very likely wouldn't have gone into WWI, and that would have likely meant no Nazis, and therefore no WWII, and no Communists in Russia, and therefore no Cold War (and no Korean War, Vietnam, no arming of Afghanistan and other places where the terrorists ended up popping up from...). It all goes back to Lincoln.
Man, was I channelling James Burke there or what?
Larspeart said:
Without getting into the reasons why this is a specious argument, how does any of this excuse the blatantly tyrannical acts I mentioned?
See the above post for how I see his impact on the future and the world for posterity. He caused a lot of misery for almost a century and a half, and maybe even more...
Thanks! Hey, another Polk man!
See, I see where Shane is coming from. He is looking at it in terms of 'impact DURING term'. I look more in terms of both that AND 'impact to posterity'. Imagine the world (and America) today had Lincoln NOT done what he did. I think it looks bleak and scary.
I see a Confederate States of America (crumbling), full of slaves, and as (at best) a '2nd world country'. And I see the north as a more insignificant, 'superfilous' nation.
I see a Confederate States of America (crumbling), full of slaves, and as (at best) a '2nd world country'. And I see the north as a more insignificant, 'superfilous' nation.
Therefore:
If Lincoln hadn't invaded the Confederacy, [/B][/QUOTE]
Whoa. See, now, you have stepped WAY over the line into 'Shane is a moron and a dumba$$'.
I believe the SOUTH fired on and attacked Fort Sumpter, without provocation, and without any advanced attack. That is a BLATANT declaration of war by ANY terms.
If Lincoln hadn't invaded the Confederacy, [/B][/QUOTE]
Whoa. See, now, you have stepped WAY over the line into 'Shane is a moron and a dumba$$'.
I believe the SOUTH fired on and attacked Fort Sumpter, without provocation, and without any advanced attack. That is a BLATANT declaration of war by ANY terms.
Larspeart said:
Except that at the time of the Civil War, slavery was on the way out, even in the south. Mechanization was making it obsolete, and since the north mechanized first, it stands to reason they would abolish slavery first. The more agrarian south didn't start receiving the benefits of technological innovation until decades later, but it was beginning to happen. In fact, you could argue that slavery would have already been made obsolete by 1960 had it not been for the Fugitive Slave Act, which meant that government was then spending taxpayer money to catch fugitive slaves and bring them home and so the slave owners never had to incur the costs of chasing down runaways.
The main rift between the north and the south was essentially that the south were mostly federalists and the north mostly nationalists. All of the issues of the civil war—slavery, the protectionist tariffs, secession, etc.—were a result of this rift. Since history tells us that our country has prospered more under federalism than nationalism, it seems clear to me that, if anything, the CSA would have been more prosperous than the USA once they caught up in technology. The USA, previously dependent on the protectionist tariffs, would likely have not had the funding or the infrastructure to support their nationalist ways for long. They would likely have moved back to federalism.
In short, I think both countries would have ended up prospering and may have even reconciled.
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
Larspeart said:
No you didn't. As you pointed out, it says "Presidents" NOT "years in office".
Jackson was a President, therefore, judging anything he did before he was President is ok. You should have made it part of the criteria that you only wanted people to base their opinions on the years in office.
What OTHER country are you talking about???
There was no 'other' country at the time. There was ONE country, which had a fort, to protect ITS (the ONE country's) own ports, waters, and harbors.
Look, I am as libertarian as your average libertarian (small l) but what you say is a sense of unspeakable anarchy. That F---ing fort was US PROPERTY, filled with US soldiers, defending it's own (and that includes South Carolina's) waters, you nut.
Since when did a FEDERAL US FORT become property of a State, even if that State 'went renegade'?
There was no 'other' country at the time. There was ONE country, which had a fort, to protect ITS (the ONE country's) own ports, waters, and harbors.
Look, I am as libertarian as your average libertarian (small l) but what you say is a sense of unspeakable anarchy. That F---ing fort was US PROPERTY, filled with US soldiers, defending it's own (and that includes South Carolina's) waters, you nut.
Since when did a FEDERAL US FORT become property of a State, even if that State 'went renegade'?
Larspeart said:
Uh, no, there were two. The duly elected legitimate governments of the south broke with their VOLUNTARY Union with the northern states to form one of their own. The Union had already given up almost all of their other ports in the South; why did they hold on to Sumter?
How is it anarchy? It was a legitimate action by the legitimate governments of the time.
No, it was "defending" the port of Charleston from ships that didn't pay the tariffs. Learn from history.
They didn't "go renegade." The Federal government only owns property in states at the will of the states. The Constitution only allows the Federal government full ownership of the ten-mile-square area for its own seat. It has bases and forts in states at the suffering of the states. There's just no other way they can Constitutionally own property in a state.
kalen said:
I am not so optimistic.
Random quotes from others:
Besides WWII being an interesting set of circumstances world-wide, FDR wasn't exactly a voice of freedom.
Utterly horrible president. The New Deal has (probably permanently) scarred the nation. FDR was a closet socialist...
Also, this is the horrible, horrible president is the man who ORDERED THE JAPANESE (and other minorities in some places, I've heard) into CONCENTRATION CAMPS, making them lose their homes and their livelihood. Strange, I can think of German dictators who did something remotely similar, although obviously on a worse scale... FDR was a horrible, horrible president. Of course, I'm bound to hear some pathetic excuse about this. Worst excuse I've heard was that he was protecting the Japanese from racism (yeah right).
If you think Lincoln's intent was to free the slaves, I doubt it. Personally, if that was truly what the civil war was all about, I would sympathize with him moreso, even if slavery was becoming economically much less viable (things like this I am not very gradualistic about). I disagree with Shane on this; I feel the rights of the slaves outweigh the lives of the governments allowing them to be enslaved, which would be the states. It was on the way out, but I feel "on the way out" isn't a good excuse to let it die a natural death.
Lincoln didn't "free the slaves", in fact, the emancipation proclaimation didn't apply to the states in the Union that still had slavery... huh, what do you know? Lincoln's intent was simply to hold the union together. I don't think it's any more elegant than that, it's just "unity" mentality that people have; today people think union was great because he "kept the union together" as if going to war against unsatisfied states was a good way to keep them together.
Also, as Shanek already clarified, Lincoln's actions during the war were also inexcusable.
Teddy tried a third term, I believe, under the Bull Moose Party since he was unsatisfied with Taft.
Also, he was quite populist, if I recall correctly, so he, too, was not so great of a president.
I'm not so good at saying who I like, it's more of an issue of who I don't hate as much.
corplinx said:
The Confederate Constitution went into effect on March 26, 1861, with the fifth ratification (Mississippi's, as it turned out). South Carolina ratified it on April 3rd. Since Ft. Sumter was attacked on April 12th, then yes, the Confederacy was in force and South Carolina was a part of it. The attack began on the orders of Brig. Gen. Beauregard of the Confederate army.
Larspeart said:
Well, if the holocaust hadn't happened none of us here would have been borne due to history being altered greatly; does that excuse the holocaust?
Oh yeah...:
Hmm, what does this remind you of?
Going to war to supposedly free the Iraqi people...
When you lose support over the original cause of the war, make a new one.