Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 What's cute is your naivete. Your version sounds like something a 3rd grade teacher with a major in education would say. I've talked at length with multiple historians of all different persuasions who have forgotten more about this subject than you will ever know, and not one of those people has ever attributed Lincoln's actions to a belief in, or a desire to see, the equality of "African Americans". Your argument seems to be that because slavery was the core issue of the war (which I'll accept for the purposes of this argument) that it necessarily follows that Lincoln was on a moral crusade for racial equality. That's quite a leap across a logical canyon you have yet to bridge. You've discounted all other possible motivations out of hand without further explanation. In short, no serious person I've ever encountered discusses this topic in such simplistic absolutes as you. So many words, with nothing of value. Basically your argument is "Hey, I've talked to some dudes and I know more than you, and No, Lincoln was not a good guy. Oh, and you are a simple guy, SO THERE!" Please, post more.
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 So many words, with nothing of value. Basically your argument is "Hey, I've talked to some dudes and I know more than you, and No, Lincoln was not a good guy. Oh, and you are a simple guy, SO THERE!" Please, post more. Odd words, comming from you, who approaches this discussion with feelings rather than facts. It's already been presented to you that Lincoln did not view blacks as his equals, and had no desire the make them citizens. He beleived that the government of the United States was created for white men. He said all of this long after the Douglas debates. In fact, until his dieing day he worked tirelessly to execute a plan to ship every black person out of America. A man, whom you claim saw blacks as equal, wanted to uproot every single one of them, toss them back on the rough equivelant of slave ships, and ship them back across the Atlantic Ocean with no concern for their desires or safety. He just wanted to be rid of them.
birdog1960 Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) What's cute is your naivete. Your version sounds like something a 3rd grade teacher with a major in education would say. I've talked at length with multiple historians of all different persuasions who have forgotten more about this subject than you will ever know, and not one of those people has ever attributed Lincoln's actions to a belief in, or a desire to see, the equality of "African Americans". Your argument seems to be that because slavery was the core issue of the war (which I'll accept for the purposes of this argument) that it necessarily follows that Lincoln was on a moral crusade for racial equality. That's quite a leap across a logical canyon you have yet to bridge. You've discounted all other possible motivations out of hand without further explanation. In short, no serious person I've ever encountered discusses this topic in such simplistic absolutes as you. you might want to rub elbows with this guy...try the president's office at univ of richmond. http://www.hwchronicle.com/news/civil-war-expert-speaks-on-sesquicentennial/ Slavery was so economically desirable that some states were unwilling to give it up, Ayers told students. He also explained that slavery might not have ended for another century had the Civil War not occured. “It’s not progress,” Ayers said. “It’s not the natural course of American history. It’s by the skin of our teeth.” Ultimately, slavery caused the Civil War, Ayers said, not conflict over constitutional rights Edited June 26, 2015 by birdog1960
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 So many words, with nothing of value. Basically your argument is "Hey, I've talked to some dudes and I know more than you, and No, Lincoln was not a good guy. Oh, and you are a simple guy, SO THERE!" Please, post more. I can't tell if you're just throwing out straw men or if you're really that bad at comprehending pretty straightforward comments. Either way, it's been entertaining watching you go full gatorman. Please continue. Maybe later you can tell us about how we went into WWI to make the world free for democracy, or how we got into WW2 for humanitarian reasons, or how we went into Iraq to free the Iraqis.
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I can't tell if you're just throwing out straw men or if you're really that bad at comprehending pretty straightforward comments. Either way, it's been entertaining watching you go full gatorman. Please continue. Maybe later you can tell us about how we went into WWI to make the world free for democracy, or how we got into WW2 for humanitarian reasons, or how we went into Iraq to free the Iraqis. Rob, he is gatorman. It's his other account.
FireChan Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Hey Magox, did you support the Iraq invasion because the morality was clear that Saddam was murdering people and needed to be stopped?
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) you might want to rub elbows with this guy...try the president's office at univ of richmond. http://www.hwchronicle.com/news/civil-war-expert-speaks-on-sesquicentennial/ Slavery was so economically desirable that some states were unwilling to give it up, Ayers told students. He also explained that slavery might not have ended for another century had the Civil War not occured. Its not progress, Ayers said. Its not the natural course of American history. Its by the skin of our teeth. Ultimately, slavery caused the Civil War, Ayers said, not conflict over constitutional rights I know that guy, and what he said doesn't support Magpie's argument at all. Personally, I was never terribly impressed with Ayers, but I don't see too much in that article to take issue with other than it seems to take it as a given that the initial cause for secession is indistinguishable from the reasons for the war itself. I don't agree with his assertion that slavery would have otherwise continued into the 1960s either. Edited June 26, 2015 by Rob's House
GG Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I can't tell if you're just throwing out straw men or if you're really that bad at comprehending pretty straightforward comments. Either way, it's been entertaining watching you go full gatorman. Please continue. Maybe later you can tell us about how we went into WWI to make the world free for democracy, or how we got into WW2 for humanitarian reasons, or how we went into Iraq to free the Iraqis. And yet, from a historical perspective, all those decisions were the correct ones, and solidified the USA's role as a global superpower. Are you saying the USA and the world would be better off if the US did not get involved? And by looking through your argument of Lincoln's views on white superiority - are you arguing that his personal position invalidates emancipation of slavery?
FireChan Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 And yet, from a historical perspective, all those decisions were the correct ones, and solidified the USA's role as a global superpower. Are you saying the USA and the world would be better off if the US did not get involved? And by looking through your argument of Lincoln's views on white superiority - are you arguing that his personal position invalidates emancipation of slavery? I think he's arguing that Lincoln did the right thing for the wrong reasons and through the wrong means. Intonations matter, unless you subscribe to utilitarianism crap.
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 And yet, from a historical perspective, all those decisions were the correct ones, and solidified the USA's role as a global superpower. Are you saying the USA and the world would be better off if the US did not get involved? And by looking through your argument of Lincoln's views on white superiority - are you arguing that his personal position invalidates emancipation of slavery? I wasn't addressing any of those issues. I was pointing out how painfully naive and childish Magpie's argument about Lincoln's motivation was.
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I can't tell if you're just throwing out straw men or if you're really that bad at comprehending pretty straightforward comments. Either way, it's been entertaining watching you go full gatorman. Please continue. Maybe later you can tell us about how we went into WWI to make the world free for democracy, or how we got into WW2 for humanitarian reasons, or how we went into Iraq to free the Iraqis. Let's dissect your ignorance. That's why when he emancipated the slaves it was only in the territories that had seceded and not the ones that were under his jurisdiction. He was ok with allowing their continued denigration of "African Americans." So what are you saying here? It's pretty obvious, what you are saying is that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves considering that the Emancipation only freed slaves from the South. Meaning, from your view, it was never about slavery but about exerting tyrannical control over the south. Of course, your ignorance didn't take into account that shortly after the executive order, the process of the 13th amendment began. Which pretty much blows up whatever you were trying to say. We all know the pretexts of the war, we know that States Rights was the reasoning provided from the Confederates to secede from the Union. We also know that Lincoln didn't solely go to war because he wanted to end Slavery. He wanted to preserve the Union, I stated that a couple times, but you are too much of a numbskull to see that. But make no mistake, the impetus for the war was about Slavery. If the South hadn't been so intent on keeping the status quo regarding slavery and got on board with the Republicans, then the war would have never have happened. But if you want to keep pretending that Slavery wasn't the driving force that started the Civil war, hey, that's your fantasy land and you are free to reside there.
birdog1960 Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I know that guy, and what he said doesn't support Magpie's argument at all. Personally, I was never terribly impressed with Ayers, but I don't see too much in that article to take issue with other than it seems to take it as a given that the initial cause for secession is indistinguishable from the reasons for the war itself. I don't agree with his assertion that slavery would have otherwise continued into the 1960s either. therefore, you acxcept this assertion: "Ultimately, slavery caused the Civil War, Ayers said, not conflict over constitutional rights"?
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I think he's arguing that Lincoln did the right thing for the wrong reasons and through the wrong means. Intonations matter, unless you subscribe to utilitarianism crap. That wasn't quite what I was getting at, but I agree with this.
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Hey Magox, did you support the Iraq invasion because the morality was clear that Saddam was murdering people and needed to be stopped? Are you just being dense, again? Are you comparing the freeing of Slaves here in our country with the morality of liberating some country in the Middle East of Hussein? Is this what you are doing? Edited June 26, 2015 by Magox
GG Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I think he's arguing that Lincoln did the right thing for the wrong reasons and through the wrong means. Intonations matter, unless you subscribe to utilitarianism crap. Didn't the South basically force his hand? History is pretty certain on this one, the states who elected to secede did so to preserve their right to have slaves.
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 therefore, you acxcept this assertion: "Ultimately, slavery caused the Civil War, Ayers said, not conflict over constitutional rights"? I thought I addressed that pretty clearly. I draw a distinction between the reasons for SC's secession and the war itself.
birdog1960 Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I thought I addressed that pretty clearly. I draw a distinction between the reasons for SC's secession and the war itself. why does the distinction matter in this context then. the battle flag was used in a war about slaves and therefore has racist symbology. donne. qed.
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Didn't the South basically force his hand? History is pretty certain on this one, the states who elected to secede did so to preserve their right to have slaves. Short skirt defense.
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 why does the distinction matter in this context then. the battle flag was used in a war about slaves and therefore has racist symbology. donne. qed. I think you see the problem with that logic, but I've not commented on the battle flag specifically so I'm not sure what you're getting at. But the distinction matters a lot. Do symbols of the American revolution represent the issues that precipitated the revolutionary war or do they represent sovereignty and independence? Didn't the South basically force his hand? History is pretty certain on this one, the states who elected to secede did so to preserve their right to have slaves. That would be kind of like if my wife left me and moved in with someone else so I march over there with a gun and have a shootout when they refuse to hand her over. Then I say she forced my hand because I needed to preserve our union.
Recommended Posts