Did Lincoln Make a Mistake?

[Forsakia]

Yes, although were they? And if so was that based on there just being a smaller black population in the north (which seems a pretty weak distinction).

Criticising the south for having the same voting restrictions seems peculiar. The Confederacy wasn't very democratic because the USA wasn't very democratic.

Well, five states in the North allowed blacks to vote, while zero in the South did, so I'm pretty sure people were, in fact, more enfranchised in the North.

Really? Which ones and from when?

[Threlizdun]

I would have liked to see a world where either the Confederate States won their independence or Lincoln just let them go, if only for curiosity's sake as there's no denying that world would have been a very different place.

They made a movie about that, though I haven't seen it. It was primarily meant to be satirical, so I'm not sure if that's quite what you're looking for.

[Xsyne]

Well, five states in the North allowed blacks to vote, while zero in the South did, so I'm pretty sure people were, in fact, more enfranchised in the North.

Really? Which ones and from when?

Doesn't name all of them and I'm having trouble finding an actual list, but Massachusetts and Rhode Island are two, Massachusetts since the beginning of the United States.

[Farnhamia]

Really? Which ones and from when?

Doesn't name all of them and I'm having trouble finding an actual list, but Massachusetts and Rhode Island are two, Massachusetts since the beginning of the United States.

Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, in his dissent from the majority decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, wrote:

Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.

There are the five.

[Xsyne]

Doesn't name all of them and I'm having trouble finding an actual list, but Massachusetts and Rhode Island are two, Massachusetts since the beginning of the United States.

Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, in his dissent from the majority decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, wrote:

Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.

There are the five.

Those were at the time of the Articles of Confederation. Blacks lost the right to vote in North Carolina sometime in the early 1800s.

[Farnhamia]

Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, in his dissent from the majority decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, wrote:


There are the five.

Those were at the time of the Articles of Confederation. Blacks lost the right to vote in North Carolina sometime in the early 1800s.

Pity.

[Ruridova]

It probably would've been worse for African Americans.

[Shnercropolis]

The SOuth would have collapsed collapsed soon anyway. Lincoln was just speeding that collapse to defeat a geopolitical enemy.

[ALMF]

Well, five states in the North allowed blacks to vote, while zero in the South did, so I'm pretty sure people were, in fact, more enfranchised in the North.

Really? Which ones and from when?

1780—Massachusetts abolishes slavery and grants African American men the
right to vote.
1821—New York maintains property qualifications for African American male
voters while abolishing the same for white male voters.
I don't know the others quickly

[Myrensis]

Letting the South go would not have ''crippled the country.'' As a democracy, you have to respect self-determination. If a majority of voters in a region of the country and their state governments clearly support independence and separation... you can't just send soldiers to force them to stay. That kind of stuff is anti-democratic...

No, you don't. You have to respect the institutions of the Democracy. The South had full representation in government and full access to all legal recourses to address their complaints, they chose violent rebellion instead. Letting them go would in fact have crippled the country because it would basically have been saying, "A guy you don't like was elected? Shoot up your local military base and declare yourself a sovereign nation, it's your God given right!"

And I said nothing about throwing black people under a bus...

You're defending people who decided they wanted 'self-determination' to protect the institution of slavery. There is no real interpretation of that where you aren't throwing black people under the bus. But hey, what's a few million inferior blacks living in slavery next to the right of good God fearing white folk to maintain their sense of superiority and 'self-determination'.

In fact, that's how a lot of the Southerners viewed their struggle against the Northern invaders. The parallels to the American Revolution are uncanny... and Lincoln was clearly the tyrant here.

Yeah..cause that's exactly why the Colonies rebelled, to preserve their freedom to hold other human beings in bondage. The only parallels between Civil War and the American Revolution is that the word "rebel" could be applied to both.

So it's ok to send tanks, planes, and armies to bomb the hell out of Texas in a situation where a majority of Texans and their state government support independence and freedom from the US?

If said Texans open fire on a Federal military installation? Absolutely. And even if they don't, the government absolutely has the authority to use force, if neccessary, to restore order and preserve the Union in the face of insurrection.

You know, by authorizing the crap Grant and Sherman pulled in the American South against Southern civilians and Southern homes Lincoln is also President Number One in terms of committing war crimes against civilians on US soil.

There were bout 4 million enslaved blacks in the South, and since they couldn't serve in the military, they were by definition civilians. So the noble Confederacy actually takes #1 in crimes against civilians on US soil by a long shot.

That Lincoln killed more Americans on US soil than all of the rest of the presidents added together? That Lincoln had a very undemocratic way of dealing with disagreements (you know, like sending armies to shoot, burn, and kill people who disagree with him)?

Every single death in the Civil War is entirely on the hands of the South. Cause, ya know, if they hadn't engaged in treason and rebellion to protect their right to own slaves there would have been no Civil War.

The South had no choice. The North had more people, more guns, and were talking about invading.

The North had more free people. The South had an extra 4 million people who would have been awfully useful in the War..except that the whole reason they fought the War was to defend their right to treat those 4 million people as cattle.

A pre-preemptive strike was necessary... plus you are forgetting one thing: NO ONE WAS KILLED.

You don't get to claim "I was too incompetent to hit anything." as proof of noble intentions.

A sovereign nation has the right to demand that all foreign installations, flags, and soldiers be removed from its soil. A sovereign nation ought to sovereign as soon as the majority of people are behind it. The South was in such a situation and since the North refused to leave, it had the right to fire at the Fort.

Not when those "foreign installations, flags, and soldiers" predate the existence of said "sovereign nation", and were never under said "sovereign" nations authority. But since the Confederacy was illegitimate and unrecognized and therefore neither 'sovereign' nor a 'nation', the point is moot.

In other words... he fought the entire war so that he could remain the president of a bigger country. He fought the entire war to keep a region that clearly wanted to be its own independent nation chained to the United States. He fought the entire war for his own power and prestige.

You should choose your words more carefully, claiming that the South was 'chained to the United States' when they fought the entire war to preserve their God given right to keep other human beings in chains is a bit...brash.

Southern democracy had large bases of voters, elected representatives, and a functional system of democracy. It is undemocratic to smash democratic institutions with military force (what Lincoln did).

Do you even read what you type?

Would say, starting a war because you don't like who won an election be considered 'smashing democratic institutions with military force''? Most people would say yes, but I assume in this bizarre fantasy land you live in what the South did was totally not like that at all!!!

You are making it sound like the American Civil War was a war of self-defense where America had to fight it otherwise it would completely cease to exist. No... the American Civil War was the war in which one part of the country wanted to be free and seperate while the other side of the country with more people, guns, and money fought to force it to stay against its will.

Even though it's plainly obvious that you're just making stuff up as you go along. I'm curious, just how far down do you have to break an area down before 'self-determination' becomes important? You keep babbling about how the "majority" of southerners wanted independence. But as you helpfully keep pointing out, the North had more people, which would mean that prior to the Rebellion, the majority of people in the Union wanted the Union to remain whole. So, barring the inevitable wriggling and justifications you'll no doubt come up with to excuse it, the entire Southern rebellion was an exercise in using military force to suppress the will of the majority. Something you claim to be against.

[Cameroi]

lincoln's biggest mistake, though it didn't seem like one at the time, at the time it was a useful and possibly necessary expedient, was corporate person-hood.

though it was ultimately a supreme court decision, he's where that came from.
getting the railroads built. and he did take cases on both sides of that issue as well.

between the log cabin and the white house, he was a pioneering corporate lawyer.
he more or less invented, or was extremely instrumental in refining and defining, corporate law.
that's the side of lincoln that gets ignored in all the hot button context of abolitionists and civil war.

[Forsakia]

Really? Which ones and from when?

Doesn't name all of them and I'm having trouble finding an actual list, but Massachusetts and Rhode Island are two, Massachusetts since the beginning of the United States.

Interesting. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that the CSA looked a lot like the USA it had been a part of. If it wasn't a 'functioning system of democracy' then the USA hadn't been.

Letting the South go would not have ''crippled the country.'' As a democracy, you have to respect self-determination. If a majority of voters in a region of the country and their state governments clearly support independence and separation... you can't just send soldiers to force them to stay. That kind of stuff is anti-democratic...

No, you don't. You have to respect the institutions of the Democracy. The South had full representation in government and full access to all legal recourses to address their complaints, they chose violent rebellion instead. Letting them go would in fact have crippled the country because it would basically have been saying, "A guy you don't like was elected? Shoot up your local military base and declare yourself a sovereign nation, it's your God given right!"

We've had page after page of people arguing that there is absolutely no legal way the South could have gained independence.

The question of scale in self-determinism is always a difficult one. But I'd put the question back on you. Do you not think people should have the right to self-determinism?

[Fishyland]

Them sound like fightin' words!
But in all seriousness the best outcome happened. The South would have eventually been conquered because of slavery and if they ended slavery they wouldn't have had a very good agriculture which is what they depended on. Also, Lincoln didn't make a mistake. The South attacked the North. They got what was coming to them. It's also illegal to secede

[Distruzio]

As is my custom, let me begin with an apology. My neglect of NS this past week or so was due to personal sickness, family and work obligations. But now I can devote a moment to address this response, Smash.

They'd be better, as far as I'm concerned. Although I will admit that I fear Dixie's integrity would have been irrevocably contorted by her involvement in the first World War, tied as she would have become to the United Kingdom. I do wish the Confederacy had survived but, out of fear for what she would have become, I do not lament her death. She will forever remain the last gasp of liberty for the American peoples (assuming that survival would have meant the UK and France pressuring her to abandon slavery).

I know these statements may be characterized as a fallacy, but your statements have zero credibility on this topic. In the past, your bizarre, twisted, and inconsistent statements on the topics of secession and slavery have included:

1. Alleging you were unable to answer a question as to whether or not you posted a specific statement (despite the post in question being quoted and clearly saying what was alleged you said). See also link (The clear reason for this being your post in question had been thoroughly rebutted so you feigned ignorance to avoid admitting error)
   
   
2. Claiming you would have been willing to be a Southern slave (because they were well treated).
   
   
3. Saying America, the South, and African-American slaves would have been better off if the Confederacy had either (1) been allowed to secede or (2) won the Civil War
   
   
4. Asserting that the "pragmatic" concerns of a relatively few white slavers override the best interest of (1) 4 million African-American slaves, (2) other white Southerners who suffered as a result of the war, and (3) the nation as a whole
   
   
5. Denying slaves in the South were ever subject to the murders, rapes, beatings, or the basic violation of people being owned and treated as property. Why? Because Southern slavers were "nothing short of a class of established businessmen" who, because they were businessmen, would not have treated their "prized stock [of human slaves] as mere animals."
   
   
6. Claiming slaves in the South were better off than free African-Americans in the North.
   
   
7. Arguing the South bears no responsibility for the Atlantic Slave Trade or the killing of 15 to 20 million blacks therein.
   
   
8. Claiming the "outright economic chaos caused by immediate (as opposed to gradual) emancipation [Southern slaves] and reconstruction" resulted in "the deaths of millions" -- far exceeding the suffering of those who would have been oppressed and/or killed by slavery if the Confederacy had succeeded in perpetuating and expanding slavery.
   
   
9. Saying Southern slavery was merely a pragmatic institution and was not evil.
   
   
10. Admitting at least once that the Confederate Constitution required "all states to be slave [states]and forbade the national gov't from interfering with the institution" but elsewhere denying this was true (saying "the Confederate Constitution outlawed the African slave trade but declared slavery to be legal. But unlike the U.S. Constitution, it permitted individual states to abolish slavery") and claiming the assertion that the Confederate Constitution gave the Confederate states less power to abolish slavery (than the U.S. Constitution did) was "Bullshit. Shear utter unadulterated bullshit." (emphasis added).
    
    
11. Comparing a poster who criticized secession and the Confederacy to Hitler (based on an erroneous and misattributed quote from Mein Kampf that was actually a third-hand paraphrase).
    
    
12. Repeatedly posting an out of context and inapposite quote from one Confederate leader (Robert Toombs) ostensibly to refute a long defense of slavery as the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy by the Vice-President of the Confederacy when you knew this was deceptive.
    
    
13. Asserting with approval that "The Southern States were NOT democracies. They were republics. Aristocratic republics. Remember, the Confederacy delegitimized democracy."

In light of these many past statements, your assertions regarding secession, the Confederacy, and the Civil War are suspect (at best).

Ah, .

Once more we find your personality revealed. Instead of actually responding to anything I have said in this thread, you attack my character. You've done this on many occasions. We've had many encounters over the past few years and, with each failure to sway me from my perspective, you resort to a blistering diatribe that amounts to little more than a crossing of arms, stomping the dirt, and shouting, "Yeah? Well, Dis, you smell funny!" You should really work on your tendency towards tantrums, Smash.

I stand by each of those comments you recounted.

You may not like them. They may be based upon logic and facts that you dispute or otherwise dismiss, but telling me I smell funny is no response of merit at all, Smash. You should know better than that, being my intellectual superior as you are (that is NOT sarcasm). Shame.

What I find odd about this whole tendency of yours is that, in other threads you have lauded my refusal to respond with emotional sensationalism while on subjects regarding the War for Southern Secession, you condemn me for it. In fact, my "sensible" approach to relationships is exactly what you attempt (with the above response) to call into question by attacking my character... and rather pathetically so, mind you.

[Azentinia]

Yeah, firing on Fort Sumter kinda took the choice out of Lincoln's hands. Letting the states go would have crippled the Union forever.
Besides, slavery had to be dealt with, and the Native support was likely just political glad-handing.

Dealt with, as in 600,000 dead. The slavery institution would have died naturally. Without a single life lost.

I believe it cost the north a lot more to keep us than it would have to let us go.
So I ask, was the price right?

Without a single life lost? What was done to the African Americans was wholesale genocide.

[SaintB]

The CSA would have collapsed under its own weight even if there hadn't been a civil war. They lacked the infrastructure and industry to survive on their own, they needed the Northern States more than the Northern States needed them. Also, there likely would have been some kind of compromise struck that would have reunited the the nation under a single flag but ultimately it would have been worse in the long term for the nation than the war was (I am NOT saying that the war was good or that it wasn't horrible) things would be worse today because of that compromise.

[Nazis in Space]

Lincoln's mistake was to not have this man as his vice president.

[Distruzio]

Lincoln's mistake was to not have this man as his vice president.

That is something I'd agree with.

[Tmutarakhan]

I would have liked to see a world where either the Confederate States won their independence or Lincoln just let them go, if only for curiosity's sake as there's no denying that world would have been a very different place.

Harry Turtledove wrote an excellently researched and thoroughly believable alternate history series on that theme. I highly recommend it: every time one of those books came out I read it at a gulp and couldn't wait for him to write the next one.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

I would have liked to see a world where either the Confederate States won their independence or Lincoln just let them go, if only for curiosity's sake as there's no denying that world would have been a very different place.

Harry Turtledove wrote an excellently researched and thoroughly believable alternate history series on that theme. I highly recommend it: every time one of those books came out I read it at a gulp and couldn't wait for him to write the next one.

Researched? Sure.
Believable? Maybe. Your mileage may vary; I thought he was trying way, way to hard to fit the post-Civil War stuff into a WW1-WW2 framework.
Poorly written? Without a doubt.
I wouldn't recommend any of his stuff, myself. He can come up with interesting ideas, but the man cannot write believably for love nor money.

[ALMF]

Lincoln's mistake was to not have this man as his vice president.

That is something I'd agree with.

If he's going to die than yes