[MB.]

Based on the knowledge that Lincoln was willing to conceed to the South's demands regarding the continued exsistance of slavery; is it still fair for him to recieve the great status he does as a president?

In other words, how could one call a man who was willing to guarantee the exsistance of slavery a "great man"?

[Boondock Saint]

In other words, how could one call a man who was willing to guarantee the exsistance of slavery a "great man"?

Because what he may have been willing to do and what he actually did are two different things.

History does not judge men on what they might have done, it judges men on what they did, and rightly so.

It doesnt matter what his motivations were, the fact is he freed the slaves. It doesnt matter what the reasons for war were, the fact is he ended the rule of the slaves owners.

It doesnt matter what his long term vision of the USA was, he was the one who set the ball rolling for equality between blacks and whites.

So what could have been or would have been is washed under the rug for what was and is.

[Red_Army]

He freed the slaves in a region he had no control of, he didn't make Black people equal in fact he was a racist. I think Lincoln did the right thing in freeing the slaves but I don't believe that the war was fought for slavery. Also Lincoln caused the death of thousands of Americans.

[Boondock Saint]

e freed the slaves in a region he had no control of

That was only a matter of time. Fact is slaves were freed in the USA because Linclon made it so.

he didn't make Black people equal in fact he was a racist.

Two very different ideas.

He was a racist on par with dare I say, most white leaders of the time. That however does not mean he did not free the slaves.

Made them equal? No, of course he did not. He only set the ball rolling for equality ...

I think Lincoln did the right thing in freeing the slaves but I don't believe that the war was fought for slavery.

Only a fool or a small child told a white washed version of history would believe that the war was fought for slavery.

Also Lincoln caused the death of thousands of Americans.

It was a civil war, deaths occur in war.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Lincoln was a lifelong white supremacist, and a long-time advocate of colonization (sending the blacks back to Africa). The great name and legacy bestowed upon Lincoln are totally undeserved, and are primarily the result of successful propagandizing by statists. The primary reason for the Civil War, a war which Lincoln started, was the desire to finance subsidies to northern industrial interests on the back of high tariffs, tariffs which the South were unwilling to accept, hence the secession and the founding of the Confederacy (in fact, the Confederate States Constitution, largely a copy of the United States Constitution, expressly forbade protective tariffs).

Slavery was ended for political reasons. Lincoln and his cabinet were increasingly worried that European powers would recognize the Confederacy. The fact that Louis Napoleon had openly proposed intervening in the US Civil War on the side of the Confederacy made this quite a valid concern. The most effective political way of preventing this was recasting the Civil War as a crusade against slavery. After Antietam, Lincoln did just that, with the Emancipation Proclamation (which manumitted no one). While many keen observers, such as Lord Acton (who carried out a correspondence with Robert E. Lee), saw right through this, it was sufficient to prevent European interference. Following the Union victory, slavery was indeed ended. However, one must consider that this was at a cost of 620,000 dead, millions wounded, incalculable property losses, and irreparable damage to the federal system. One must not forget that the British, Spanish, and French Empires all ended slavery peacefully.

[Boondock Saint]

One must not forget that the British, Spanish, and French Empires all ended slavery peacefully.

Totally irrelavant.

As are the motivations and the politics of the time.

Fact is he ended slavery. That's it. That's all that matters.

Hand a starving person a piece of food to feed his family and he will not care why you did it, he will only remember that you did it.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It's hardly irrelevant, Boondock. The accidental ending of slavery is traditionally offered as a justification for the Civil War. This is a poor justification, precisely because the Civil War was totally unnecessary to end slavery. If McClellan, for instance, had pressed on his Peninsular campaign, the Confederacy would've been defeated in 1861, and slavery would not have ended at that time. For those of us who consider the Civil War tragically unnecessary, it is important to point out that other countries successfully ended slavery without bloodshed.

[Boondock Saint]

The accidental ending of slavery is traditionally offered as a justification for the Civil War.

As a justification? Only by a fool imo.

The sanctity of the union justifies the war, slavery is but icing on the cake.

it is important to point out that other countries successfully ended slavery without bloodshed.

Thats fine. However it is not what happened in relation to the US.

The US ended slavery as a side note thus the blood that was spilled was not to end slavery but to preserve the power of the north and federal govt.

All of this historical stuff is interesting but it does not change the following ...

- Lincoln freed the slaves.

- The freeing of the slaves got the ball rolling for black equality.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The Union was hardly preserved, as the Union of old was destroyed, a new, terrible central government arose in its place, a government which steadily destroyed more and more liberties, reaching the leviathan monster we have today. That, however, is a sidenote to the discussion at hand.

I'm not sure you can argue that Lincoln freed the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free anyone, the Thirteenth Amendment did. Lincoln had nothing to do with the Thirteenth Amendent. The most you can argue here, I think, is that Lincoln started the Civil War, which got the ball rolling on ending slavery.

I also think that the Civil War might have actually slowed the emergence of legal equality for blacks in the South, as Jim Crowe was primarily a reaction to the tyranny of Reconstruction, not to the manumission of slaves. To be fair, I don't blame this on Lincoln, I blame this on the radical Republicans who set national policy after the Civil War, such as Thaddeus Stevens (who, as a steel maker, was a gigantic beneficiary of the Civil War and the Union victory).

In any case, it's certainly absurd to claim the Lincoln was a great man. He set out to implement a neo-mercantilist economic system and to create a far stronger central government. Both of these he accomplished, and both of these were negative accomplishments. The freeing of the slaves, while positive, cannot be attributed to him.

[Red_Army]

I did not mean to say the American civil war was uncommon because thousands died I'm saying that it was started by Lincoln for unjust purposes.

[Paradigm]

For some reason, the worst violators of the Constitution usually end up being admired as great presidents. Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Bush... In Lincoln's defense, he did genuinely believe slavery was wrong, but he also silenced opposition, declared martial law, waged a war against Americans without declaring one, and robbed the states of their one recourse against a tyrannical federal government--secession. History books(the one's read in public schools to indocrinate children) teach us how great it was that he "saved the union," but he killed an incredible amount of people in the process, and in doing so, secured the federal government's dominance over the states, paving the way for the centralization of power which has occurred since then.

[Smilin' Dave]

I might have missed something, but how did Lincoln start the Civil War? Wasn't it the South that broke away, and wasn't it the South that fired on fort Sumter? Have I forgotten something?

[Red_Army]

It was a constitutional right to secede from the Union, Lincoln broke the constitution.

[Piano Red]

The Civil War was not fought over slavery, slavery was just a factor of it. It was primirly fought over as a result of the Confederate states having withdrawn from the Union, as well as to settle the issue of the supremacy of state's rights vs. those of the Federal Govt., and to end the regionalist mentality that Americans still had at that time wherein people referred to themselves by their state, their region, and their country in that order, rather then as they do the other way around today.

Nevertheless, in the ultimate decision I believe that Lincoln was one of the most dynamic Presidents that the US has ever had, he and the North had to fight the bloodiest war America has ever had to do it, but the country was closer together as result, and overall, nearly every one of his policies turned out to be positive.

Oh, and as a black person, even though people are right in saying that Lincoln didn't free the slaves, he did at least pave the way to it, and for that I can only give him my thanks.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I might have missed something, but how did Lincoln start the Civil War? Wasn't it the South that broke away, and wasn't it the South that fired on fort Sumter? Have I forgotten something?

The Union was an entirely voluntary association of states, and by no means where states authorized to prevent other states from breaking away via force. Nowhere in the Constitution is the use of force for the purpose of preserving the Union authorized, nor does the Constitution forbid secession. Additionally, legal precedent for secession (and nullification) existed in the Virginia and Kentuck Resolves, South Carolina's nullification of the Force Bill, and the threat of secession offered by much of New England during the War of 1812 (a major reason for the ending of the that war before victory was achieved). The southern states were entirely within their rights to secede, and Fort Sumter was therefore a foreign military force illegally occupying Confederate soil, leaving the southerners entirely within their rights to fire upon it (total casualties: one horse). It should also be noted that the attack on Fort Sumter was preceded by Lincoln calling for volunteers to suppress the "rebellion", as well as a speech Lincoln had earlier made explicitly stating that the South would be invaded if the new tariff was not collected.

[Ombrageux]

This is why the US constitution sucks. It gives the central government very little power, on the principle that the state governments are more representative of the people. And yet, there is nothing in the constitution about ensuring that the local state governments are liberal democratic.

Democracy and freedom are not the same thing as federalism.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You've obviously never read the Federalist Papers. The framers did not have in mind democracy at all, considering mass democracy to be despotic and a threat to liberty. The point of the Constitution was to bind together the states via unrestricted trade and a homogenous legal system, while simultaneously preventing the accumulation of power by forcing various states to both compete with eachother and to prevent accumulation of power by the central government. Up until the Civil War, which destroyed the Union and the Constitution, the system was very successful. In this, it echoed the thoughts of Benjamin Franklin, who said, "This is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism ... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

I certainly agree with you that the Constitution does not do anything to ensure that states and localities uphold liberty (aside from guaranteeing a republican form of government, which almost no state no longer has), although the 14th Amendment did change things somewhat in that regard.

[Russkie]

Great Britain ended slavery long before the US. Not only that, they gave them equal rights, unlike the US which took more than one hundred years and they still have discrimination in some sectors.

[Smilin' Dave]

Fort Sumter was therefore a foreign military force illegally occupying Confederate soil, leaving the southerners entirely within their rights to fire upon it

Isn't the property of Fort Sumter federal property (eg. not the property of the state of South Carolina)? If it is, surely it's not occupying Southern soil at all.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery, slavery was just a factor of it. It was primirly fought over as a result of the Confederate states having withdrawn from the Union

Again, maybe I have missed something, but didn't the South suceed because they thought the Federal government was going to wind back slavery (hence violating states rights)? That would in effect make the war about 'slavery' for at least one party in the war.

Great Britain ended slavery long before the US. Not only that, they gave them equal rights, unlike the US which took more than one hundred years and they still have discrimination in some sectors.

And when did mighty Russia end Serfdom Russkie? Where do we see more skinhead gangs today, Russia or the US?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Isn't the property of Fort Sumter federal property (eg. not the property of the state of South Carolina)? If it is, surely it's not occupying Southern soil at all.

Fort Sumter was the property of the US federal government. It happened to be a military fortification on southern soil. I'm not sure if any legal maneuvers were used to try to expropriate the fortress via eminent domain, or if it was simply attacked by the local militia. In any case, I don't believe that the forcible ouster of a foreign military force constitutes aggression.

Again, maybe I have missed something, but didn't the South suceed because they thought the Federal government was going to wind back slavery (hence violating states rights)? That would in effect make the war about 'slavery' for at least one party in the war.

No, this is propaganda. The South seceded because it wanted no part of the Republican Party's neo-mercantilist program, especially the high tariff rates, which would've severely injured the southern economy. In fact, Congress passed an amendment to the Constitution (it was never ratified by the states) on March 2, 1861 (this was after the southern delegation had left Congress) which would've upheld slavery forever--obviously an olive branch to the South.

And when did mighty Russia end Serfdom Russkie? Where do we see more skinhead gangs today, Russia or the US?

1861, actually. The "Tsar-Liberator" Alexander II ended it unilaterally (although a Russian form of share-cropping developed in its place...).