Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 12, 2019, 04:37:07 pm
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, Senator ON Progressive)
  Who's your least favorite president from each party?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 Print
Author Topic: Who's your least favorite president from each party?  (Read 57085 times)
Alexander Hamilton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,168
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: July 09, 2009, 11:46:38 pm »

Um, protectionism had to do with tariffs and trade restrictions to make domestically-produced goods more competitive with foreign (primarily European) imports, and it went on long before the Confederacy and the war came into existence. Like other Northern Republicans, Lincoln would have advocated such an economic policy because it was politically advantageous to do so.

Wow. This... wow. What are they teaching you in the schools down there?

Lincoln's economic plan is well known. It entailed the temporary nationalization of industries related to the war effort (once more, to ensure that they did not supply the Confederacy with weapons or ammunition and to ensure the Federal government's monopoly over the same), along with plans to restructure the Southern economy towards an industrial focus, eventually integrating the Freedmen into the free-market structure.

On the whole, this is a remarkably non-statist economic platform for the time; in comparison, Brazil's conservatives completely nationalized all industries during its own civil war.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. It's becoming increasingly apparent that you have no real knowledge of the issues involved whatsoever.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no. Lincoln received Southern emissaries prior to the Battle of Fort Sumter; he quite simply refused to recognize their independence, and justifiably so. Therefore the Southerners launched a war of aggression against the North.  

*snip socialist revanchism*

I bet he went to school in my state, CA. My US history AP teacher made us write an essay about the Great Triumvirate. I was absent. When I made up the assignment, I wrote about Webster, Clay and Calhoun. She had told all of the other students that the Great Triumvirate were the three branches of the federal government! She actually tried to fail my essay because she didn't know that was what the Triumvirate actually was!

That was one of many mistakes she made, significant ones. Keep in mind, AP teacher. Imagine the lower level classes......

CA is screwed up. All propaganda in these schools.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: July 09, 2009, 11:48:24 pm »

Even if I accept all of your bullsh**t about the Civil War, wouldn't the appropriate response be to recover the lost property, rather than killing hundreds of thousands of people that had nothing to do with the incident?

The rest of the South provided material and moral support to the terrorists who attacked Fort Sumter; ergo, they were responsible for the ensuing War.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you even read the Constitution, dipsh**t? Right there, in the Preamble, it states:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

How else is the Federal government, as made responsible for "domestic Tranquility" and the "common defense" in the Constitution, to do so without first establishing and ordering a military?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite frankly, yes. To the victor goes the spoils.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,011
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: July 09, 2009, 11:53:42 pm »

Even if I accept all of your bullsh**t about the Civil War, wouldn't the appropriate response be to recover the lost property, rather than killing hundreds of thousands of people that had nothing to do with the incident?

The rest of the South provided material and moral support to the terrorists who attacked Fort Sumter; ergo, they were responsible for the ensuing War.

That is ridiculous! You don't attack civilians for the actions of their government! You can't possibly know if the entire population supported their actions, so any attack on civilians is murder.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you even read the Constitution, dipsh**t? Right there, in the Preamble, it states:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

How else is the Federal government, as made responsible for "domestic Tranquility" and the "common defense" in the Constitution, to do so without first establishing and ordering a military? [/quote]

Why should I care about the Constitution? It is an void document. Plus, no citizens of the United States were killed in the attack on Fort Sumter, and no civilians were under attack.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite frankly, yes. To the victor goes the spoils.
[/quote]

I can only hope you are joking and don't actually believe in mass murder like you describe. If you do, I would suggest psychiatric help.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: July 09, 2009, 11:57:07 pm »

Um, protectionism had to do with tariffs and trade restrictions to make domestically-produced goods more competitive with foreign (primarily European) imports, and it went on long before the Confederacy and the war came into existence. Like other Northern Republicans, Lincoln would have advocated such an economic policy because it was politically advantageous to do so.

Wow. This... wow. What are they teaching you in the schools down there?

Lincoln's economic plan is well known. It entailed the temporary nationalization of industries related to the war effort (once more, to ensure that they did not supply the Confederacy with weapons or ammunition and to ensure the Federal government's monopoly over the same), along with plans to restructure the Southern economy towards an industrial focus, eventually integrating the Freedmen into the free-market structure.

On the whole, this is a remarkably non-statist economic platform for the time; in comparison, Brazil's conservatives completely nationalized all industries during its own civil war.

See above. It's becoming increasingly apparent that you have no real knowledge of the issues involved whatsoever.
When you've gotten yourself this deep into a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging.

We're not talking about Lincoln's wartime economic policies, we're talking about protectionism as an economic philosophy. An economic philosophy which Abraham Lincoln ran on in his race for the presidency and which was a prime source of Southern dissatisfaction with the federal government.

 Obviously the South could not have seceded over Lincoln's wartime policies.

That you didn't know the meaning of "protectionism" has already shattered any illusion of credibility you may have held.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Yeah...as I just said, Lincoln refused to negotiate; in particular he refused to even recognize the existence of the potential negotiating partner.

Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: July 10, 2009, 12:00:26 am »

That is ridiculous! You don't attack civilians for the actions of their government! You can't possibly know if the entire population supported their actions, so any attack on civilians is murder.

Ah, right. So you will therefore condemn Lee's 1864 invasion of Pennsylvania as an act of unwarranted aggression against United States civilians.

No?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hahaha, riiiiiight.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I am unjustified in defending my own property, even if nobody was killed in the course of its destruction?
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: July 10, 2009, 12:04:07 am »
« Edited: July 10, 2009, 12:06:00 am by Einzige »

When you've gotten yourself this deep into a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging.

Right. Which is why I advise you to leave the thread posthaste.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You will now, of course, provide evidence that Lincoln ran on an unduly 'protectionist' economic platform, and that this was the prime motivator for the War of Southern Secession?

Ah, wait, but you can't. Because Lincoln was not a protectionist, and in fact had joined the Whigs only hesitantly, at the behest of his law partner; his chief objection to them being their protectionism. The only economic ideas he had at all endorsed, in fact, were the Transcontinental Railroad and land-grants for colleges - hardly 'protectionism'.

*snip prattle*

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no. As I just said, Lincoln happily received the agrarian socialist envoy; he simply refused to give into their whining, and they forthrightly stormed out, tears welling in their eyes, and threw a hissy-fit like spoiled children that lasted five years.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,011
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: July 10, 2009, 12:06:05 am »

That is ridiculous! You don't attack civilians for the actions of their government! You can't possibly know if the entire population supported their actions, so any attack on civilians is murder.

Ah, right. So you will therefore condemn Lee's 1864 invasion of Pennsylvania as an act of unwarranted aggression against United States civilians.

No?

All attacks on civilians are unjustified. You have yet to condemn the war crimes commited by Union forces.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hahaha, riiiiiight.[/quote]

Wow, you went through that book fast. Do you care to give a summary?

Plus, even if we do accept the Constitution as valid, then you must condemn all of the unconstitutional actions of President Lincoln, including the deportion of a Congressman, censoring the telegraphs, confiscating weapons, not declaring war on the Confederacy, suspending habeus corpus, imprisoning journalists, imposing an income tax, etc. If not, it would appear that you have not read the Constitution.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I am unjustified in defending my own property, even if nobody was killed in the course of its destruction?
[/quote]

You haven't answered how a State can own property when it's income is confiscated from taxpayers?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,011
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: July 10, 2009, 12:08:50 am »

When you've gotten yourself this deep into a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging.

Right. Which is why I advise you to leave the thread posthaste.

The defender of victors' justice, racism, collectivism, and mass murder says this.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no. As I just said, Lincoln happily received the agrarian socialist envoy; he simply refused to give into their whining, and they forthrightly stormed out, tears welling in their eyes, and threw a hissy-fit like spoiled children that lasted five years.
[/quote]

So, you believe that people should be forced to be governed by a government against their will? Sounds like slavery, and last time I checked, two wrongs do not make a right.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: July 10, 2009, 12:10:17 am »

All attacks on civilians are unjustified. You have yet to condemn the war crimes commited by Union forces.

I'll do that just as soon as you revanchists reject the numerous assaults on American citizens by secessionists. I see that no apology is forthcoming, however.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, I disagree with many of the measures that Lincoln took in pursuit of the war, many of the same, in fact, that Bush took during his wars. But unlike the "War on Terror", the Civil War was eminently justifiable from a libertarian perspective.

And I will not even tolerate the notion that the Constitution is no longer applicable; suggesting such is tantamount to treason. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

When that right is granted to the State in its chartering document, then that State can own property.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: July 10, 2009, 12:21:23 am »

Right. Which is why I advise you to leave the thread posthaste.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You will now, of course, provide evidence that Lincoln ran on an unduly 'protectionist' economic platform, and that this was the prime motivator for the War of Southern Secession?

Ah, wait, but you can't. Because Lincoln was not a protectionist, and in fact had joined the Whigs only hesitantly, at the behest of his law partner; his chief objection to them being their protectionism.
Continuing to just type whatever comes into your head? Your claims here have no basis in reality, and your link doesn't even mention trade policy.

During his time in Congress, Lincoln had a thoroughly protectionist, pro-tariff record. Lincoln ran in 1860 supporting the protectionist Morill Tariff and using the slogan "Protection to American Industry"; both his Democratic opponents opposed the Morill Tariff. And during his administration, Lincoln would sign two additional Morill Tariffs, each higher than the previous, into law.

Lincoln's own words:


"My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank ... in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff."

"I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff-Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject [the need for protectionist tariffs] than any other. I have not since changed my views."
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,011
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: July 10, 2009, 12:23:29 am »

All attacks on civilians are unjustified. You have yet to condemn the war crimes commited by Union forces.

I'll do that just as soon as you revanchists reject the numerous assaults on American citizens by secessionists. I see that no apology is forthcoming, however.

I already condemned their actions and will do so again if you deem it necessary. The Confederate Army commiting their share of crimes, and that is awful. However, at least they were not trying to coerce the other side into being their subjects, unlike the Union Army. So, yes, I condemn the Confederate Army's actions that harmed civilians.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, I disagree with many of the measures that Lincoln took in pursuit of the war, many of the same, in fact, that Bush took during his wars. But unlike the "War on Terror", the Civil War was eminently justifiable from a libertarian perspective.

And I will not even tolerate the notion that the Constitution is no longer applicable; suggesting such is tantamount to treason.  [/quote]

Fighting a war to eliminate people's right to free association, by not letting the Southern civilians have the government of their choice is not libertarian. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as killing civilians and destroying the right to free association is NOT libertarian.

Also, I notice that you are too close-minded to even read the essay. It is not applicable because I have not signed it, just like any contract that I have not signed is inapplicable. You use circular logic, the Constitution is legitimate, so suggesting that it is illegitimate is treasonous, so the Constitution is legitimate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

When that right is granted to the State in its chartering document, then that State can own property.
[/quote]

Even ignoring any arguments from natural law, could you point to the specific clause that gives the federal government the right to own property. Keep in mind the governments are delegated powers, not rights, so I doubt you will find that anywhere.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: July 10, 2009, 12:38:15 am »

I already condemned their actions and will do so again if you deem it necessary. The Confederate Army commiting their share of crimes, and that is awful. However, at least they were not trying to coerce the other side into being their subjects, unlike the Union Army. So, yes, I condemn the Confederate Army's actions that harmed civilians.

Oh, not at all! They were only coercing slaves - human beings - into becoming property. That's not at all at odds with the basic libertarian principle of self-ownership, no siree!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fighting a war to preserve a socialist economic system that enslaves the individual man in order to recompense one's self from doing physical labor is not libertarian, either. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as enslaving individuals against their will for one's material benefit is not libertarian.

Of course you don't have this problem, since you're quite clearly a communist. For that matter, I'd suggest you tone down your attitude with me, little boy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see no reason to subject myself to your socialist pipe-dreams, quite frankly.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hence the concept of popular sovereignty, which you'd know about if you'd actually spent time inside of a classroom.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution is legitimate because it derives its support from the people. The people continue to support it; ergo, the Constitution is legitimate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section II quite clearly grants to Congress the power to collect taxes, with which to buy property. Please, try again.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: July 10, 2009, 12:42:15 am »

Continuing to just type whatever comes into your head? Your claims here have no basis in reality, and your link doesn't even mention trade policy.

During his time in Congress, Lincoln had a thoroughly protectionist, pro-tariff record. Lincoln ran in 1860 supporting the protectionist Morill Tariff and using the slogan "Protection to American Industry"; both his Democratic opponents opposed the Morill Tariff. And during his administration, Lincoln would sign two additional Morill Tariffs, each higher than the previous, into law.

Your ignorance is overwhelming, quite like, I imagine, the peculiar odor that rises from the fetid swamps of Louisiana on particularly balmy nights.

The Morill Tariff, you twat, was solely intended to raise funds for the United States military against the Confederacy - which it did. It was adopted on March 2, 1861 - nearly a full month after the Peace Conference I mentioned above fell through, and was pushed through after it became obvious that war was coming, as a means to ensure that the United States would have the funds to defend itself.

Sorry, try again.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,011
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: July 10, 2009, 12:58:39 am »

I already condemned their actions and will do so again if you deem it necessary. The Confederate Army commiting their share of crimes, and that is awful. However, at least they were not trying to coerce the other side into being their subjects, unlike the Union Army. So, yes, I condemn the Confederate Army's actions that harmed civilians.

Oh, not at all! They were only coercing slaves - human beings - into becoming property. That's not at all at odds with the basic libertarian principle of self-ownership, no siree!

I never said it was. However, you asserted that the Union army's actions were libertarian, when in fact they were no better than their Confederate counterparts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fighting a war to preserve a socialist economic system that enslaves the individual man in order to recompense one's self from doing physical labor is not libertarian, either. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as enslaving individuals against their will for one's material benefit is not libertarian. [/quote]

Please show me where I defended the Confederates' actions as liberarian. I have not condoned chattel slavery, but you have condoned political slavery.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see no reason to subject myself to your socialist pipe-dreams, quite frankly. [/quote]

Where have I described myself as socialist or shown support for socialist ideas? Please provide a quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hence the concept of popular sovereignty, which you'd know about if you'd actually spent time inside of a classroom. [/quote]

I know and reject the idea. I cannot be bound by a contract I don't give consent to; anything else is slavery.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution is legitimate because it derives its support from the people. The people continue to support it; ergo, the Constitution is legitimate. [/quote]

I doubt that every single individual in the country supports the Constitution. Therefore, it is illegitimate since the Constitution presumes their consent when they have not given it.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section II quite clearly grants to Congress the power to collect taxes, with which to buy property. Please, try again.
[/quote]

It never gives the federal government the right to property, since they cannot possess it. Having the power to collect taxes != the right to own property. Only individuals and voluntary associations of individuals can own property.



BTW, it is telling that you must constantly midrepresent my positions in order to continue your argument.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: July 10, 2009, 12:59:11 am »
« Edited: July 10, 2009, 01:02:15 am by Midwest Lt. Governor Vepres »

Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Lincoln was justified in suspending habeas corpus. Article I, Section 9 of the constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Why did he do this? Because many of the anit-war protesters were just asking for conflict. Lincoln was protecting the US citizens from even more conflict. Justified in my opinion. Much of these suspensions were used in Maryland, for if Maryland succeeded the US capital would be surrounded by the enemy, which could cause a collapse of the Union. Certainly if you walked down the street, peacefully protesting the war, without try to cause or imply violence, they wouldn't have been arrested. They all received trials after the war anyway.  

SPC, regardless of what the Union did, the confederates chose to solve it through violence, instead of diplomacy. They started the war.

Libertas, Lincoln was opposed to slavery. Radicals never get anything done, and often alienate people from their cause. Lincoln realized that a pragmatic approach was needed. If he took a hard line approach to slavery, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland may have succeeded as well. The Confederates would also rally their people better to fight against the Union. Strategically unwise.

High tariffs were much more viable an option then they are now. There was no internet, no telephones, no airplanes. Einzige gave good justifications as well.

Libertas, you keep referencing industrialists corrupting Lincoln, yet you don't cite them nor even give any of their names.

As far as I'm concerned, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shot. They were contesting the border states, instead of allowing them to vote for whether they wanted to remain in the Union or join the Confederates.

From Wikipedia, and yes, I checked, it was cited, "This meeting left the future General Sherman "sadly disappointed" at Lincoln's seeming failure to realize that "the country was sleeping on a volcano" and the South was "preparing for war." As you can see, Lincoln didn't expect war, therefore didn't want to start a war.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution was contract signed by the states. It is therefore legitimate. To break said contract, I would say at least a super majority, if not all parties involved in the contract must reject it for it to be invalid.


Take that!
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: July 10, 2009, 01:09:59 am »

Libertas, Lincoln was opposed to slavery. Radicals never get anything done, and often alienate people from their cause. Lincoln realized that a pragmatic approach was needed. If he took a hard line approach to slavery, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland may have succeeded as well. The Confederates would also rally their people better to fight against the Union. Strategically unwise.
You can't just keep repeating lies hoping to make them true. In his own inaugural address, Lincoln stated that he would have no objection to having the "slavery forever" Corwin amendment put into the U.S. Constitution. He was no abolitionist.

Lincoln's position on slavery changed with the political winds.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
No he didn't, and how does lack of internet access make punishing half the county to reward the other half anymore justifiable?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That's because I'm not here to discuss unnecessary details.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Then you're clearly not concerned with the truth then. The issue of Fort Sumter has already been discussed in this thread.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Future war criminal Sherman got his feelings hurt? I don't see how that proves Lincoln didn't know exactly what he was getting into.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,011
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: July 10, 2009, 01:17:37 am »

Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Well, as a Californian, I would be on my states' side. Plus, Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, not ordering troops to leave, so the analogy is invalid.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That power is delegated to Congress, otherwise it wouldn't be in Article I of the Constitution, which specifically deals with Congress.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they could just move the capital.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though many of them were just newspaper publishers peacefully exercising freedom of speech? And what good is it for them to receive trials AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the Union chose to solve it through violence by refusing to recognize the independence of the CSA.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though he said that he would be willing to save the Union without freeing a single slave?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the contrary, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the areas that the Union Army didn't control. It was pure strategy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government functioned for several decades w/o high tariffs.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? Roll Eyes

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actions speak louder than words. He had threatened war if the Southern states didn't pay their tariff revenue.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,159
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: July 10, 2009, 09:25:24 am »

SPC and Libertas, you guys are spinning your wheels in the mud with those that have been brainwashed by the school system.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,011
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: July 10, 2009, 10:55:56 am »

SPC and Libertas, you guys are spinning your wheels in the mud with those that have been brainwashed by the school system.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, Einzige lost this debate already when he made absurd statements. I know he's hopelessly brainwashed and too close-minded to win over, but if someone stumbled on this thread and saw this debate, it would be quite clear who the winners were, or at least who the loser was, based on all of the absurd statements and logical fallacies Einzige made.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: July 10, 2009, 11:22:26 am »

SPC and Libertas, you guys are spinning your wheels in the mud with those that have been brainwashed by the school system.

Roll Eyes


Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Well, as a Californian, I would be on my states' side. Plus, Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, not ordering troops to leave, so the analogy is invalid.

What if it was another state then? A state bordering yours.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That power is delegated to Congress, otherwise it wouldn't be in Article I of the Constitution, which specifically deals with Congress.
[/quote]

In March 1963, Congress passed the habeas corpus act, which endorsed Lincolns actions on the issue, both past and present.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!
[/quote]

I'm no historian, but to my knowledge many were actively calling for conflict in the Union states.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they could just move the capital.
[/quote]

True, but don't forget how many people lived there.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though many of them were just newspaper publishers peacefully exercising freedom of speech? And what good is it for them to receive trials AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER?
[/quote]

Because they may get out or be proven guilty.

I would bet that many of these newspaper publishers were calling for conflict, adding fuel to the flame if you will.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the Union chose to solve it through violence by refusing to recognize the independence of the CSA.[/quote]

Uh, no. Lincoln himself said on multiple occasions that he intended to solve the problem through diplomacy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though he said that he would be willing to save the Union without freeing a single slave?
[/quote]

In his inaugural he said he would not force the states to do anything regarding slavery. He said it multiple times on the campaign trail. Therefore the south had no reason to succeed. It's like if Texas really decided to succeed because Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric would hurt them, even though Obama has done little to suggest he would outright end NAFTA.

Additionally, Lincoln was very pro-states' rights, so why should the southern states succeeded. They still had voices in congress as well.

While the southern states had every right to be mad that the candidate they opposed was elected, to succeed because of that is unjustifiable and in a way goes against the spirit of democracy.

Finally, a Lincoln quote, "If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate itóbreak it, so to speakóbut does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" This makes perfect sense to me. As a Libertarian, even you believe in the enforcing of contracts, no?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the contrary, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the areas that the Union Army didn't control. It was pure strategy.[/quote]

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government functioned for several decades w/o high tariffs.[/quote]

I concede this. However, didn't Thomas Jefferson, a man you libertarians admire so much, push for a unilateral embargo. Besides, I'm not going to let one position cause me to hate a President.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? Roll Eyes[/quote]

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actions speak louder than words. He had threatened war if the Southern states didn't pay their tariff revenue.
[/quote]

Citation please.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: July 10, 2009, 11:27:21 am »

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.
The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: July 10, 2009, 11:33:04 am »

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.
The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.

Did you even read the page I linked to? With an open mind I might add.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: July 10, 2009, 11:40:20 am »

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.
The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.

Did you even read the page I linked to? With an open mind I might add.

Yes, and it contains little more than baseless speculation to try to explain away the many occasions in which Lincoln made clear he didn't have a problem with slavery.
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,364
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: July 10, 2009, 12:00:56 pm »

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
James Monroe

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Lyndon B. Johnson

Republican
Benjamin Harrison

Just curious, why Harrison compared to the other largely interchangable Gilded Age presidents (Grant, Arthur, etc)?
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: July 10, 2009, 12:03:31 pm »

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.
The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.

Did you even read the page I linked to? With an open mind I might add.

Yes, and it contains little more than baseless speculation to try to explain away the many occasions in which Lincoln made clear he didn't have a problem with slavery.

Here's a quote from Lincoln in July 1, 1854: "If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."

Another, from October 16, 1854: "I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

One more, from August 24, 1855 in a letter to his friend: "In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair to you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union."

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC