Happy Birthday, Abraham Lincoln

[OL FU]

You guys finish this one and let me know if I should wear blue or gray tomorrow.




as long as it isn't Citadel blue, I'm ok with it.

[GannonFan]

Sounds like the argument a lot of people use when arguing the side of the south


We southerners are a stubborn bunch.

I try not to impose modern morals on the past, but when your opposition does, you are forced to. I believe that every state has the right to leave the Union. Is it funny that many of the northern states felt the same in 1861? Hell, NYC tried to leave.

But there is a difference in terms of morals when one group calls a race inferior and advocates separation and when another group calls a race inferior and defends the practice of buying and selling them as property and denying them any free will.

As for having the right to leave the Union, again, based on what? It was never clear, even to the people that created the Union, so why is it clear now?

And there is a difference between thinking you can leave and talking about it versus actually doing it. Plenty of people talked about leaving the Union, but only the South actually did it. Pretty significant difference.

[Ibanez]

I'm certainly not pretending that the war didn't have horrible consequences - between the horrific battlefield casualties and, as you say, the century of ruin afterwards, the war was a truly awful thing to occur. But as you say, the North and the South were extremely complicit in both why the war happened, the conduct of the war, and the resulting recovery from the war.

But as for the original purpose, even though slavery was not the stated cause by either side, it certainly became a huge cause and there's no doubt that without the presence of slavery that we probably never would've had the war in the first place. All the great issues of the early United States ultimately had to deal with slavery, one way or the other. Just because it wasn't the stated purpose at the onset of the war doesn't change the fact that without slavery we probably don't have a war.

If anyone has any doubts as to why the states seceded, they need to read some of the secession documents. South Carolina's makes it clear. They may have mentioned other reasons but the heart of the issue was the right to own other human beings. Believe me, I have no affection (other than in a Gone with the Wind kind of way, in other words the highly fictionalized version of the antebellum south) for the old south. If I wouldn't get arrested, I would climb up the flag pole and take the damn battle flag off the state house grounds myself.

There is always questions on whether wars should be fought. We have certainly fought wars for less reasons than this one. While time has proved the war ultimately beneficial, I think it shouldn't simply be assumed that this war was justified because the north won and 100 years later the civil rights movement finally appropriately decided the issue.

On the other hand, it was 150 years ago. What's done is done.

I know you can't discuss the Abe without discussing Lincoln, but they should be seperate at times (especially since all the civil war talk is taking away from my point!)

[Ibanez]

I try not to impose modern morals on the past, but when your opposition does, you are forced to. I believe that every state has the right to leave the Union. Is it funny that many of the northern states felt the same in 1861? Hell, NYC tried to leave.

But there is a difference in terms of morals when one group calls a race inferior and advocates separation and when another group calls a race inferior and defends the practice of buying and selling them as property and denying them any free will.

As for having the right to leave the Union, again, based on what? It was never clear, even to the people that created the Union, so why is it clear now?

And there is a difference between thinking you can leave and talking about it versus actually doing it. Plenty of people talked about leaving the Union, but only the South actually did it. Pretty significant difference.

I agree for the most part but being that it's a voluntary union, I use that fact for secession.

But there is a difference in terms of morals when one group calls a race inferior and advocates separation and when another group calls a race inferior and defends the practice of buying and selling them as property and denying them any free will.

There is a difference, but both are bigot groups that shouldn't be idolized.

[dbackjon]

You guys finish this one and let me know if I should wear blue or gray tomorrow.




as long as it isn't Citadel blue, I'm ok with it.

Bellhop Blue?

[CitadelGrad]

You're entitled to your opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. Do you even know how the Convention was formed? Do you know when it was formed and by whom? Apparently you don't.

The state Assembly called the convention into existence and established it be done via an election. They also established than any call for secession had to also be approved by the voters afterwards. Those elected officials met as a Convention and they voted 98-1 against seceeding.

Do you object?

That's hardly the entire story. The Missouri government had adopted a position of neutrality, remaining in the Union for the time being but refusing to provide supplies, men and money to the federal army. It was that refusal that led to the federal attack on the capital and subsequent exile of the elected legislature and governor. Once the federals removed the legitimate government, the Convention, with no legal authority but the backing of federal troops, declared all elected state offices vacant and established itself as the Missouri government.

Members of the Convention were elected to consider only one issue. They were not elected to replace the legitimate government and had no authority to do so. Their only authority came from the guns of several thousand federal soldiers.

[youngterrier]

...also happy birthday Charles Darwin! (ironically I had a test on evolution today....)

[BDKJMU]

Way to go Abe!!!! Still the best we've ever had!

BS. GW was the best we've ever had.

[catamount man]

I got nothing personal against Lincoln. In short, he was a man just like the rest of us in that he had flaws and imperfections. God alone will judge Lincoln in due time, just as He will every man that has walked the face of the Earth.

[houndawg]

I got nothing personal against Lincoln. In short, he was a man just like the rest of us in that he had flaws and imperfections. God alone will judge Lincoln in due time, just as He will every man that has walked the face of the Earth.

He must be really busy.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm not trying to argue the war. Just his Legacy. Shit, you think people will say Bush was great and give him a monument? Why not, he's very similiar to Lincoln.

You keep saying this....I do not think it means what you think it means.

[AZGrizFan]

I got nothing personal against Lincoln. In short, he was a man just like the rest of us in that he had flaws and imperfections. God alone will judge Lincoln in due time, just as He will every man that has walked the face of the Earth.

He must be really busy.

He judges fast.

[catamount man]

He must be really busy.

He judges fast.

His judgement cometh swiftly to both the quick and the dead.

Back to Lincoln:

http://reformed-theology.org/southern/lincoln.htm

[BigSkyBears]

I think if you judge Lincoln in the 19th Century context you can still appreciate some of his accomplishments.