The Civil War

[CapitalistPleb]

So lately Iv'e been doing some reading on the Civil War and the more I read the angrier I get. The fact that Lincoln is praised as a hero dispite the fact that he violated so many of States rights makes me sick. I mean the Confederacy had the constitutional right to separate from the union, especially because the Union goverment was directly ruining the souths economy before the war. There never should have been a war! Lincoln went directly against the Constitution by deploying troops inside the country. The only reason that Lincoln decieded to go against slavery was to pretend that the Union had a moral high ground. And I think the ultimate injustice to the South is that today, the average dipshit brainwashed citizen think that they were the incompetent evil people.


TL;DR : Lincoln is in my opinion one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.  

[Fresnel]

Welcome to the Enlightenment. The only decent president we ever had who didn't think breeches were the height of fashion was Harrison, because he died before he could ******** up.  

[Maddness91]

ok as a canadian who didn;t take any special American history classes as taught by an American (or Canadian's for that matter)...

the southern states succeeded, therefor becoming there own sudo-country, therefore becoming an non-American and therefore unprotected entity in the northern unions constitution (no matter if the south still went under the same declaration of independence and constitution and so-forth)
then the northern union was like, ********, and wanted them back, and then they had a war, and the north won, and regain control over the southern states...
like... isn;t that the general formula for any war? someone looses, and gets butt hurt for the rest of time... sad day for them, they lost xp

and i agree succession is legal (or else should be, i forget whether it is or not in the usa ATM) because no one should be subjected to the will of the few if they (in there region) are with the many... hence the current state legislature system to make sure of majority rule per region and to get around the succession rules (states can be opposed to the main gov't without need for "actual" succession these days)
but to succeed comes with risks and rewards... like if i go out and go up to a cop and say "******** this i don;t agree with the laws that say theft is wrong" and then stole his hat, i doubt it would turn out to good for me... risk, potential reward, probable punishment... then end of story... the south succeeded, with potential rewards, and potential punishments... in the end they got the punishment...

anyways, but isn;t the purpose of civil war to "choose" which side of the country is "right" ? it;s an old school physical national referendum rofl idk all the reasons for the civil war but slavery was prolly one of the top 4 or 5, so instead of going around with a piece of paper and getting people to vote on it, they killed people instead... and whoever killed the most people won the "vote"... end of story xp "constitutional" or not, the will of the people was done confused and isn;t that what democracy is all about xp

and come on... the country was only like 85 y/o... all young countries go through growing pains... helps it figure out how to not blow it;s self up in the future

InB4 me getting flamed for some reason as usual when i post here in topics like this xd

(after reading this over, MAN am i a libertarian xd )  

[Fresnel]

Maddness91

sudo-country

Lol.

But anyway, I think what you fail to understand is that democracy has limits. Say there are one hundred people in a given room, representing the spread of America. Black, white, rich, poor, east, west, etc. 99 of them vote to take the richest man's money and distribute it among the rest of them. Is this fair? The majority thinks so, so it must be, right? Might does not make right. Democratic or not, they didn't have the right to strip another country of its sovereign rights.

There's an old saying... "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."  

[Maddness91]

Fresnel

There's an old saying... "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

the sheep still lost, even with it's well-armed contest wink with contest comes a looser...

also, what u fail to understand is that "right" is relative... the majority decide what is "right" at the time... if you don;t like it, just say no and succeed, see how that works out for u wink what are u going to do against the majority? if the majority says it;s right, then it;s right at the time (InB4 "if the president does it, then it is not illegal" rofl )... there has to be winners and losers... that;s the basis of war, capitalism, hell every system has winners and losers... even perfect socialism has losers, because regular people loose the ability to be better than everyone else... they are bound by the lowest common denominator

think of it this way... is it wrong to succeed from a country u don;t agree with? no of course not.... is it wrong to attempt to gain back something that was once yours but was taken away by others? ......... no i don;t think so neutral

(wow 9 edits later i have something sounding half decent xd )  

[Fresnel]

Maddness91

Fresnel

There's an old saying... "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

the sheep still lost, even with it's well-armed contest wink with contest comes a looser...

also, what u fail to understand is that "right" is relative... the majority decide what is "right" at the time... if you don;t like it, just say no and succeed, see how that works out for u wink what are u going to do against the majority? if the majority says it;s right, then it;s right at the time (InB4 "if the president does it, then it is not illegal" rofl )... there has to be winners and losers... that;s the basis of war, capitalism, hell every system has winners and losers... even perfect socialism has losers, because regular people loose the ability to be better than everyone else... they are bound by the lowest common denominator

think of it this way... is it wrong to succeed from a country u don;t agree with? no of course not.... is it wrong to attempt to gain back something that was once yours but was taken away by others? ......... no i don;t think so neutral

(wow 9 edits later i have something sounding half decent xd )

I think you're putting far too much faith in the presumption that people vote for what's right, and not for what is in their best interest. Look at my previous hypothetical. You think those people think it's RIGHT to rob the rich guy of all his money? No, they just think it'll benefit them to have some money. If I killed a hundred people, is it RIGHT to vote against my own execution? Probably not, but it'll certainly benefit me. It's the same reason people cheat. In fact, it IS cheating, in a way.

Also, it should be noted that that land never belonged to the North. It's the South. QED. They might think it's theirs, but it wasn't. It's no different from telling your neighbors that you think they're a bunch of unholy shitheads, and they can never set foot on your property again.  

[Maddness91]

Fresnel

Maddness91

Fresnel

There's an old saying... "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

the sheep still lost, even with it's well-armed contest wink with contest comes a looser...

also, what u fail to understand is that "right" is relative... the majority decide what is "right" at the time... if you don;t like it, just say no and succeed, see how that works out for u wink what are u going to do against the majority? if the majority says it;s right, then it;s right at the time (InB4 "if the president does it, then it is not illegal" rofl )... there has to be winners and losers... that;s the basis of war, capitalism, hell every system has winners and losers... even perfect socialism has losers, because regular people loose the ability to be better than everyone else... they are bound by the lowest common denominator

think of it this way... is it wrong to succeed from a country u don;t agree with? no of course not.... is it wrong to attempt to gain back something that was once yours but was taken away by others? ......... no i don;t think so neutral

(wow 9 edits later i have something sounding half decent xd )

I think you're putting far too much faith in the presumption that people vote for what's right, and not for what is in their best interest. Look at my previous hypothetical. You think those people think it's RIGHT to rob the rich guy of all his money? No, they just think it'll benefit them to have some money. If I killed a hundred people, is it RIGHT to vote against my own execution? Probably not, but it'll certainly benefit me. It's the same reason people cheat. In fact, it IS cheating, in a way.

Also, it should be noted that that land never belonged to the North. It's the South. QED. They might think it's theirs, but it wasn't. It's no different from telling your neighbors that you think they're a bunch of unholy shitheads, and they can never set foot on your property again.

i know what is right is not always voted in favor of... (hell look at financial reform or health care [pls don;t bring these up, that;s a whole other debate that doesn't pertain to guns or much of anything in this guild xd ])

what i'm saying is that what is "voted" for (hopefully by now anyone reading see;s i put "vote" and civil war as almost interchangeable words by now) is the will of the people, and therefor "right" at the time... if the few control the many, where does it end? if 3 people out of 100 absolutely know something is right, does that make it right? they may think so, but the other 97 people out weigh them 32 to 1, so what are they going to do? the 97 other people are happy enough, and therefor dictate that the choice of the 97 is "right"...

where things get foggy is when u get a 49-51 (or close enough) "vote" or a civil war, where half the country thinks one way and the other thinks opposite... do about half of people think thing X is right? yes... but they are still beaten by the true majority, or the stronger force, and therefor the almost half are not the deciding factor, therefor sad day for them, they don;t get there way, because that;s not what the majority wants at the time... try again next time, see what happens later in time

and for the "it wasn;t there's" ... perhaps, idk fully know American history down to the letter (as stated before) but wars didn;t fall under the "rules" they do now... back in the day, i'm pretty sure countries were pretty free to go on a war of conquest... and if it was a war of conquest between 2 different "countries" (or unions or confederacies or w/e) then it wouldn;t technically be a civil war... but idk, i'm not fully knowledgeable about technical things and word usage, so take the 2nd part of this thought / paragraph as a grain of salt

AND if you claim the south wasn;t part of the north, it only helps my point of:
[being] a non-American and therefore unprotected entity in the northern unions constitution"
which fully goes against the original argument that:
"Lincoln went directly against the Constitution by deploying troops inside the country."

and yes i know that that was not ur personal direct argument, i;m just pulling it back into perspective the original scope of this debate, and perhaps giving hockeyboy a 2nd view of things

also IDk what QED means (quod erat demonstrandum, which means "that which was to be demonstrated" [wiki] ???) so i may be missing a part of ur argument...  

[Requiem ex Inferni]

Lincoln wasn't the great hero everyone makes him out to be, but he certainly wasn't the worst president in history. Not the greatest either, but not the worst.

Unfortunately I know jack s**t about most presidents so I can't give an honest opinion as to who I think was the worst president in history.  

[OberFeldwebel]

Requiem in Mortis

Lincoln wasn't the great hero everyone makes him out to be, but he certainly wasn't the worst president in history. Not the greatest either, but not the worst.

Unfortunately I know jack s**t about most presidents so I can't give an honest opinion as to who I think was the worst president in history.

Agreed.
The worst president to ever be history will be Obama.
Going right in front of Jimmy Carter as worst presidents, but JC only failed because he was a lame duck, not a douchetard liar.

Oh sorry if calling him a liar is going too far, but stretching or enhancing the truth is considered lying to me.  

[CapitalistPleb]

Maddness91

Fresnel

Maddness91

Fresnel

There's an old saying... "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

the sheep still lost, even with it's well-armed contest wink with contest comes a looser...

also, what u fail to understand is that "right" is relative... the majority decide what is "right" at the time... if you don;t like it, just say no and succeed, see how that works out for u wink what are u going to do against the majority? if the majority says it;s right, then it;s right at the time (InB4 "if the president does it, then it is not illegal" rofl )... there has to be winners and losers... that;s the basis of war, capitalism, hell every system has winners and losers... even perfect socialism has losers, because regular people loose the ability to be better than everyone else... they are bound by the lowest common denominator

think of it this way... is it wrong to succeed from a country u don;t agree with? no of course not.... is it wrong to attempt to gain back something that was once yours but was taken away by others? ......... no i don;t think so neutral

(wow 9 edits later i have something sounding half decent xd )

I think you're putting far too much faith in the presumption that people vote for what's right, and not for what is in their best interest. Look at my previous hypothetical. You think those people think it's RIGHT to rob the rich guy of all his money? No, they just think it'll benefit them to have some money. If I killed a hundred people, is it RIGHT to vote against my own execution? Probably not, but it'll certainly benefit me. It's the same reason people cheat. In fact, it IS cheating, in a way.

Also, it should be noted that that land never belonged to the North. It's the South. QED. They might think it's theirs, but it wasn't. It's no different from telling your neighbors that you think they're a bunch of unholy shitheads, and they can never set foot on your property again.

i know what is right is not always voted in favor of... (hell look at financial reform or health care [pls don;t bring these up, that;s a whole other debate that doesn't pertain to guns or much of anything in this guild xd ])

what i'm saying is that what is "voted" for (hopefully by now anyone reading see;s i put "vote" and civil war as almost interchangeable words by now) is the will of the people, and therefor "right" at the time... if the few control the many, where does it end? if 3 people out of 100 absolutely know something is right, does that make it right? they may think so, but the other 97 people out weigh them 32 to 1, so what are they going to do? the 97 other people are happy enough, and therefor dictate that the choice of the 97 is "right"...

where things get foggy is when u get a 49-51 (or close enough) "vote" or a civil war, where half the country thinks one way and the other thinks opposite... do about half of people think thing X is right? yes... but they are still beaten by the true majority, or the stronger force, and therefor the almost half are not the deciding factor, therefor sad day for them, they don;t get there way, because that;s not what the majority wants at the time... try again next time, see what happens later in time

and for the "it wasn;t there's" ... perhaps, idk fully know American history down to the letter (as stated before) but wars didn;t fall under the "rules" they do now... back in the day, i'm pretty sure countries were pretty free to go on a war of conquest... and if it was a war of conquest between 2 different "countries" (or unions or confederacies or w/e) then it wouldn;t technically be a civil war... but idk, i'm not fully knowledgeable about technical things and word usage, so take the 2nd part of this thought / paragraph as a grain of salt

AND if you claim the south wasn;t part of the north, it only helps my point of:
[being] a non-American and therefore unprotected entity in the northern unions constitution"
which fully goes against the original argument that:
"Lincoln went directly against the Constitution by deploying troops inside the country."

and yes i know that that was not ur personal direct argument, i;m just pulling it back into perspective the original scope of this debate, and perhaps giving hockeyboy a 2nd view of things

also IDk what QED means (quod erat demonstrandum, which means "that which was to be demonstrated" [wiki] ???) so i may be missing a part of ur argument...

I didnt mean for it to sound like that, what I meant was "the states that wanted to secede".
I understand what your saying about the south declaring independence allowing the North to violate Hagas Corpus.
But my point is that the founding fathers never intended for all the states to be considered one country,they were supposed to be individual countries held together by the UNITED States, kind of like the Europeon Union.So the states had the right to secede from this organization as long as they followed the Constitution.  

[Maddness91]

hockeyboy96

I didnt mean for it to sound like that, what I meant was "the states that wanted to secede". I understand what your saying about the south declaring independence allowing the North to violate Hagas Corpus.
But my point is that the founding fathers never intended for all the states to be considered one country,they were supposed to be individual countries held together by the UNITED States, kind of like the Europeon Union. So the states had the right to secede from this organization as long as they followed the Constitution.

i'm assuming ur changing "Lincoln went directly against the Constitution by deploying troops inside the country."
to "Lincoln went directly against the Constitution by deploying troops inside [the states that wanted to secede]."
and Habeas Corpus, not Hagas Corpus
just so i'm covered in telling u what i think i/we are talking about...


preamble of the constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The phrase "We the People" indicates that the government of the United States "is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people," rather than a league of the states. (jacked from wikipedia, they say things better than i do)

and it;s not like the EU... the EU doesn;t have a "president of the EU" the USA does, right from the beginning, as the face of executive power in the country, which means that the states are all bound together by 1 deciding power (i.e. they're a single country with a democratic gov't) saying that they wanted a bunch of small pockets of land to work together to form 1 gov't with a congress and senate to run it... but they didn;t want a country... it's the same ******** thing... Canada's got that system to (except our legislative and executive branches are less separated than urs... meaning we're more of a "union" than u are, because we don't have 1 guy who gets to make crazy decisions that affect the entire country and enact them the next day... he needs the consensus of the majority of the provinces on every decision he makes, to make more sure the will of the people is done as best it can)

but i do (i think) understand what ur getting at... the states themselves are supposed to determine there own "destiny" (for lack of better word at 1:00am) and they do... they get fair and equal representation and all that good stuff and they get to speak there voice and make there case... but to say that they are aloud to succeed, and not obey the new rules or give back into the system just because they follow all the other "rules" of the constitution is ridiculous... imagine if i "succeeded" my house and property from my country, and stopped paying taxes, and idk, made polygamy legal (it is not legal as of the writing of this post xp )... but yet i still drive to work on paved roads, still expected water and electricity to flow (as long as i paid for it of course) and all other benefits... i follow all other rules i am bound by the Canadian constitution, and any supreme court rulings... now how long do u think it would take before the tax man to come to my door and kick me out? i could kick and scream but i don;t think it's going to work out very well, because i'm pretty sure the tax man will bring friends that will outnumber me... sad day for me on that day

hell Quebec almost succeeded, referendum vote was like 52% - 48%... but they didn;t because that;s not a majority... they got official status as "a nation inside a nation" but they still pay there taxes to the feds, and follow the laws of the rest of the land (tho they get alot of those taxes back, and they have there own bunch of crazy laws [i mean s**t, who ever heard of not being able to turn right on a red... bullshit] xp )


bit of a tangent but honestly, the best form of gov;t i can think of is a referendum for every issue... no president, no congress, no senate... get 1 vote from every person willing to participate, and that will be the end all and be all of all issues... if the people get it wrong, bring the issue up again in (idk) a year, and see if the people still want something. (once we get computer implants in our brain his will be a much faster and less expensive process xp )


(this went alot longer than i thought it would xp )

EDIT:
i forgot to write this point last night, but hey, i wouldn;t be me if i didn;t put some crazy thing to piss everyone off somewhere in my arguments

if you say the founders "never intended for all the states to be considered one country"... well the USA is a country now... no ones going to go around saying the usa isn;t a country now are they? well since the founders didn;t write the constitution with "country" in mind, then perhaps u shouldn't try to fit there constitution into ur country... make a new document with the word "country" specifically involved

( dramallama dramallama dramallama dramallama dramallama dramallama dramallama )  

[Private Sanders]

Deploying troops inside the country isn't unconstitutional in a national emergency. If it was, we'd never be able to defend ourselves in a time of war.

As for secession, Lincoln HAD to stop it from happening. Failing to do so would have been the end of the democratic experiment as European countries (such as Great Britain) looked on and saw the division of the Union as the proof of democracy's ineffectiveness that the ruling elite desperately sought, resulting in the increased democratization of Great Britain and other European countries never happening.

On a lighter note, if the South HAD gained it's independence from the Union, slavery wouldn't have lasted more than a few decades at most, despite the fact that the Confederate Constitution protected the right to own slaves. It simply wasn't profitable enough anymore, and brought too much international criicism. Segregation, however, would have existed in the most brutal fashion (think South African Apartheid, and perhaps even worse than that).

The book The Confederate States of America by Roger L. Ransom explains the most likely courses of action of an independent Confederate government after the war was over, and explains the reasoning behind end of slavery and rise of segregation.

Can you offer any proof that the US was supposed to be individual countries held together by a United States, like the European Union? That may be the ideal behind the Articles of Confederation, but those have been defunct since the Constitution was written.  

[Das Rabble Rouser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb5vWaebkf4

This award winning video got me an A in my civil war class junior year.

The student teacher graded it and had a good sense of humor  

[Recon_Ninja_985]

mr lincoln was also a dictator by definition and imprisoned northerners opposed to the war.