![abraham-lincoln[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/i2NJgZK.jpg "abraham-lincoln[1].jpg")
Was he a hero or a villain?
He was a hillain
>>1244378
It's hard to know because he got assassinated before he really got a chance to do anything.
he won and made the bed we have to sleep in today, so it doesn't really matter what we think, does it?
>>1244378
Hero
> "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.'"
>South attacks anyway
Lincoln was perfectly willing to let the South come around in their own time, but they forced his hand.
Hero because the asshurt he caused echoes through the south to this day.
It's hilarious.
>>1244406
(you)
>>1244378
He brutally put down a peaceful bid for separatism in a voluntary union-state based on enlightenment principles of self-determinism, and and set the course for its constituent parts to eventually completely lose their power to determine their own futures. The death toll from this on both sides and resulting social problems and economic destruction in the South are appalling. He was not a good man in any sense of the word if you believe in the values the US was founded, and he certainly did not redeem himself by releasing slaves that he previously did not care about as a method of economic warfare.
>>1244532
Wasn't it the south who fired the first shoots?
>>1244532
A few things.
A) He wanted to send them to Liberia
B) The South attacked the federal government first
C) The right to own slaves (subvert the rights of others) isn't a legitimate cause for secession. It's hard to take the moral high ground against Lincoln when that is the basis for 600,000 dead
>>1244562
>>1244568
you don't keep and reinforce a military fort in a foreign country, you get all of your shit out of there and then respect the voice of the people living there, arguing about who fired first is just a pointless game that never leads to anything. The US did not have the moral authority to prevent or not respect democratic secession when it was founded on such principles less than a hundred years before.
>The right to own slaves (subvert the rights of others) isn't a legitimate cause for secession.
There is no such thing as a "legitimate cause for secession". The US was a voluntary union in the eyes of the Founding Fathers and that was how it should have stayed.
Neither. He did some very ethically questionable things. Lincoln and his cabinet basically stumbled into secession, and then decided to force the South's hand into war while claiming to not want war. Lincoln locked up anti-war protestors, silenced anyone who opposed the war, and at some points stepped so far beyond his constitutionally granted powers it's almost silly. He was also very bad at being Commander in Chief and his constant prodding and urging of his army commanders, while good intentioned, completely fucked their ability to win for the first three years of the war. The war might have ended with an early Union victory without his meddling.
That being said, Lincoln also did some very good things. He turned what was essentially a barely justifiable war to "preserve the union," which already had shaky standing because of the American Revolution, into a war for the freedom of slaves. This change in the nature of the war was able to bring both radical abolitionists and those purely motivated by economical reasons together in pursuit of something morally higher than a war for land. He was also able to hold the early Republican party together in several crisis where it almost came apart.
All things taken together, I generally agree with what Lincoln achieved (with the notable exception of his expansion of the powers of the President), but I disagree with the methods he had to use to achieve what he did.
I also believe very strongly that Lincoln, whatever else he may or may not have been, felt very strongly that he was doing what was right for everyone, including Southerners. I may not agree with everything he did, but I can respect his conviction and willingness to do whatever it took to save what he saw as his country.
>>1244603
>foreign country
No. It's an insurrection.
>>1244669
>decided to force the South's hand into war while claiming to not want war.
How so?
>>1244680
an "insurrection" that was completely sovereign in its affairs, had its own currency, military, stamps, and government, and even diplomatic missions to other countries. I'm not interested in having the same semantics argument with people in every single even remotely Civil War-related thread. I don't give a single shit what your political views on the federal government's retroactively invented right to batter its constituent states into submission are, the Confederate States of America, if you are living in a world where you don't need federal law or a supreme court ruling to tell you that the sky is blue and ducks go "quack", was a country.
>>1244603
>Owning other human beings is Okay because it was their own country.
Dixie Apologists get shittier every week.
Guess what, modern USA would invade another country on the exact same principles, and everyone would think it was a just war.
The slave trade, whether on basis of race, relgion, economics, gender, sexuality, or nothing at all, is utterly reprehensible.
You would not put up with being owned, and you would be the first to support a war to free yourself if you were ever enslaved.
Good thing you weren't, shitheel.
>>1244680
In 1860 the States were legally foreign countries. It was why people used to say "The United States are," rather than "the United States is," as we say today.
Robert E. Lee almost always referred to Virginia as his country.
>>1244694
Lincoln and Cameron purposely kept Fort Sumter heavily garrisoned and supplied despite it basically controlling one of the South's most important harbors. Not only that, but Robert Anderson was instructed to continue levying Federal Import duties on ships going into the Charleston harbor.
Lincoln and Cameron also had very specific correspondence with each other over the nature of blatantly re-suplying the Fort in order to provoke a Confederate response.
In pure realpolitik terms, Lincoln maneuvered the South into a position where they either had to fire the first shot of the war or pussy out and loose the sympathy of the Border states.
What's interesting is that Lincoln apparently hoped that South Carolina firing the first shot would also alienate the border states, but it actually had the opposite effect. After Lincoln was forced to call up troops in response to Sumter, previously neutral states like Virginia and Tennessee were outraged and joined the Confederacy.
![us-military-reach[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/YHMW6CL.gif "us-military-reach[1].gif")
>>1244603
>you don't keep and reinforce a military fort in a foreign country
Yeah we do.
Those forts were US government property paid for with federal tax dollars, imagine if Germany tried to kick all our soldiers out and shot at them without even giving us the chance to talk it over. The CSA could've offered to buy them or transfer them peacefully but they were too busy sperging out over "muh honor" to actually put some thought into their strategy. If South Carolina had two brain cells to rub together they'd have gotten Virginia and Maryland on their side before they fired those shots.
>>1244756
>Lincoln and Cameron also had very specific correspondence with each other over the nature of blatantly re-suplying the Fort in order to provoke a Confederate response.
Post em.
>>1244751
Not sure why defending the right of peoples to exercise their god-endowed right to self determination is by an extension condoning every aspect of their politics or what you are so fucking salty about, but by that logic any power that had abolished slavery would have been well within their right to come and annex the US before the Civil War.
>>1244740
>an "insurrection" that was completely sovereign in its affairs, had its own currency, military, stamps, and government, and even diplomatic missions to other countries.
Who never ever officially recognized the south as a separate country.
>I don't give a single shit what your political views on the federal government's retroactively invented right to batter its constituent states into submission are
Try the constitution. Among Congress's powers:
>To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
>>1244793
If those bases in Europe were unanimously not wanted by the populations of the respective countries they are in they would be an illegal occupation. They are not, they are there because of treaties and mutual consent between the US and foreign powers. This is not an argument.
>>1244825
>Who never ever officially recognized the south as a separate country.
I'm not interested in playing games. I am a person and I do not need government action to be able to interpret clear reality. Just stop it with this idiotic shit.
>>1244756
>In 1860 the States were legally foreign countries.
Where does the constitution acknowledge this?
>>1244855
>Just stop it with this idiotic shit.
You're angry because you're out of arguments. Deep down, you know that there was no constitutional right to secede, and that no one thought of the south as its own country except for the south.
>>1244751
>The slave trade, whether on basis of race, relgion, economics, gender, sexuality, or nothing at all, is utterly reprehensible.
The international slave trade was banned in 1808. It had nothing to do with the Civil War, the outlawing of the slave trade was not one of the CSA's grievances.
>>1244860
The Constitution, a document created by secessionists, does not address secession at any point, let alone prohibit it to the states. which means that the subject is
>reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
>>1244856
It doesn't explicitly say, but that was because the Founding Fathers considered it self-evident.
You have to remember that after the Revolution, the former colonies were not bound by any obligation to join the either the Articles of Confederation or the later United States Constitution. Indeed, Vermont was on the cusp of not signing the Constitution when the time came.
The States were, for all intents and purposes, separate and sovereign countries prior to the signing of the Constitution, and it could be argued that they were legally still separate countries until the Supreme Court ruled after the Civil War that they were not.
Even the name State implies a separate, sovereign government rather than an administrative district like the states are today.
>>1244860
There was no Constitutional right to secession, but there wasn't anything in the Constitution denying it either. In fact, I would say that the American revolution would at least give a precedent at the least. The Second amendment also seems to suggest that the Founders foresaw secession as necessary as well.
>>1244876
International slave trading was actually one of the first clauses of the Confederate Constitution that was agreed upon. The South made far more money domestically breeding slaves than importing them.
>>1244906
>International slave trading was actually one of the first clauses of the Confederate Constitution that was agreed upon.
*Banning the international slave trade
>>1244826
>not wanted by the populations ... they would be an illegal occupation
No they wouldn't be. A sudden surge of public hostility doesn't mean that property rights no longer exist. If that were the case then Cuba would've taken Guantanamo Bay after their revolution which declared a new government. Those bases remained federal property, and the troops stationed there remained members of the US military, regardless of the state government's secession.
>>1244885
>does not address secession at any point
No. It doesn't formally recognize that "secession" is a thing even. It gives Congress the power to put down insurrections.
And as for your selective use of the 10th amendment, the full text reads
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Therefore, anything guaranteed to the states by that amendment has to be not covered in the Constitution, and the constitution clearly states that congress has the power to put down insurrections. And further, that
>Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Which the south did.
>>1244921
That post was about what the US should have done, not what it was legally required to do. And, objectively speaking, whether it could reasonably be called an act of provocation.
Would have been despised by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who thought the idea of states not being able to secede as outright tyrannical.
The Emancipation Proclamation essentially changed the war into a war about slavery from the North's perspective. So why not let slavery fade away as it has in every civilized land instead of waging an unnecessary war which was basically the American Holocaust.
Certainly not a hero to me.
>>1244906
>The Second amendment also seems to suggest that the Founders foresaw secession as necessary as well
I would highly dispute that, and see no reason why if they meant for states to be able to secede, they wouldn't put quite plainly the peaceable legal process for them to do so, rather than leaving it up for interpretation.
>>1244949
>So why not let slavery fade away as it has in every civilized land instead of waging an unnecessary war which was basically the American Holocaust.
Because the South had already seceded, written slavery into their "constitution", and attacked?
>>1244378
Neither, the world isn't divided by black and white (at least, not by the time he was done anyway)
>>1244947
>US should have done, not what it was legally required to do.
He claimed that if bases in Europe were unwanted that they would be illegal. I don't know how else you could interpret that post. Declaring secession doesn't suddenly void all previous agreements made by that government and give you free reign to annex whatever property you want.
>>1244929
>No. It doesn't formally recognize that "secession" is a thing even.
It does not recognize many things "as things". The point of the Constitution was to be as broad as possible using the least amount of words with the least amount of ambiguity.
>the constitution clearly states that congress has the power to put down insurrections
the CSA was not an insurrection, as they had seceded from the USA within constitutional and democratic means any further violent action against the US government afterward was an act of war by a foreign power.
>treason
>Which the south did.
Citizens of the Confederate States, not owing allegiance to the United States, were not subject to charges of treason by United States law.
>>1244988
>Declaring secession doesn't suddenly void all previous agreements made by that government and give you free reign to annex whatever property you want.
I am him. But yes, fine, if the federal government had completely acquired the land from South Carolina's government it was their right to keep it regardless of doing so's prudence.
>>1244990
>the CSA was not an insurrection, as they had seceded from the USA within constitutional and democratic means
No. There were NO constitutional means of secession. And all >>1244740 this shit that the south did, completely flies in the face of the Constitution and the powers it is supposed to guarantee over the states.
Never once does the constitution say that those powers don't still apply if some of the states say "We're not part of your union anymore!"
>>1245016
if something does not violate the constitution, it is constitutional. If legal, peaceful secession was to not be permitted (something almost none of the states signing the constitution on either side of Mason-Dixon would have consented to) it would have been disallowed explicitly.
>Never once does the constitution say that those powers don't still apply if some of the states say "We're not part of your union anymore!"
this is a very shaky and confusing argument.
>>1244990
>>1245016
And as to the argument that
>Citizens of the Confederate States, not owing allegiance to the United States, were not subject to charges of treason by United States law.
The constitution clearly states
>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Meaning if the states say "we don't have to follow your laws" and the constitution says "this is the supreme law of the land, yes you do."The constitution is right.
>>1245047
>if something does not violate the constitution, it is constitutional.
Secession violates the Constitution's authority as the supreme law of the land >>1245060
in away you quite plainly stated, by saying
>Citizens of the Confederate States, not owing allegiance to the United States, were not subject to charges of treason by United States law.
Constitution says you have to follow the laws set out as long as those laws are onstitutional, and if the state legislature says otherwise, it's wrong.
Federalism is a far better arrangement than states rights, and slavery is bad, so im with Lincoln all the way. Who would want a state's right government in the modern era? America would be a shithole.
Must be alot of Rhodesia fans here, huh?
>>1245088
>Literally being a statest boot licker
Why should someone 3000+ miles from me have any say in my Government?
Why should I have any say in theirs?
Why do people have this retarded idea that everyone needs to follow the same ideology and laws or THEY ARE DOING IT WRONG.
>>1245016
>There were NO constitutional means of secession
Except that's total bullshit and you evidently know nothing of constitutional law.
In Texas v. White the SCOTUS determined that states could secede if they had the consent of the other states, and they determined this AFTER the Civil War. If the CSA hadn't chimped out and attacked the US then it probably would've been declared legal at some point.
>>1245060
so
>you cannot leave the union because this document that via the 10th amendment allows states to leave the union is the law of the union that they left
wat
>>1245104
We're indoctrinated into federalism from birth. Nowhere else in the world does everybody have this rabid desire to deny THEMSELVES the right to self-determination. The federal government is so out of control that they need means to keep everybody in line because they know that if we developed enough regional affiliation and belief in decentralization of government they would be fucked.
>>1245105
>via the 10th amendment allows states to leave the union
It does not. I reiterate
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
>nor prohibited by it to the states
so
>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
>any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
Meaning the states DO NOT get to decide that the constitution, the laws, and the treaties of the united states do not apply to them.
>>1245088
Hawaiians might not mind. Texans probably would if it were put up to a vote because they're stupid.
>>1245128
>Meaning the states DO NOT get to decide that the constitution, the laws, and the treaties of the united states do not apply to them.
Yes, and that would be very true if the CSA was part of the United States. States are not prohibited from seceding by the constitution, therefore secession is a power exclusively possessed by the states and the people, and if done removes that state from the United States, where, as you rightfully said, the US constitution remains the law of the land.
Unless of course, you think those that fought for freedom against tyranny congregated to create a constitution and thought it good judgement to make it legally impossible for all future generations of Americans to peacefully determine their own futures through incredibly vague language.
>>1245187
>States are not prohibited from seceding by the constitution
What is secession except deciding that the constitution no longer applies to them? The Constitution say you can't do that, so the 10th amendment doesn't guarantee that right.
>>1245199
>What is secession except deciding that the constitution no longer applies to them?
It is leaving the union where the constitution is applicable law.
Again, you'd think the secessionists, revolutionaries, and enlightenment-inspired intellectuals that wrote the constitution would be a little bit more clear in their declaration that peaceful self-determination is illegal in the country they themselves created so we wouldn't need to have these discussions.
>>1245223
>It is leaving the union where the constitution is applicable law.
An illegal act, as it defies the power of the constitution as the supreme law of the land.
hero to the north and blacks, villain to the south. There I answered, now you autists can stop arguing inane points you don't actually understand.
>>1245236
Secession was a legal act within constitutional boundaries. As the US Constitution, as your passage says, applies exclusively to the United States. if a state peacefully left the union and thereby afterwards removed the US constitution as their law, it is not an unconstitutional act as they are not in the US, and left the US via constitutional means. For the third time, why the ambiguity if this passage is supposed to be dealing with the illegality of secession? If legally preventing peaceful breakup of the US in the future under any circumstances was a priority to the Founding Fathers in making this document why did they not make that clear?
>>1245268
what exactly do you think you are clearing up?
>>1245271
>and left the US via constitutional means
Explain your reasoning for this again. How and why is it constitutional?
>>1244378
He was a lanky gaunt skeletal motherfucker. a true creepy ass cracka
slenderman
>>1245288
>the US Constitution does not forbid the right of state secession, thereby making it a state power within constitutional legality
>the Constitution is also expressly the law of the United States and only the United States
>therefore, if a state leaves the US and it takes action to abolish the US constitution as the law within that state, it is not in violation of the constitution as it is not part of the United States
This argument only applies before Texas v White, which retroactively made secession illegal, before which there was no legal precedent for secession and it can be assumed to be a legal act.
>>1245338
>the US Constitution does not forbid the right of state secession
You can't constitutionally say "I don't have to listen to the constitution anymore". If the constitution says it's the supreme law of the land, and says that anything the states say to contradict this is irrelevant, that includes secession, so secession is not protected by the 10th amendment.
>>1245418
I guess i'll go hoist up the Union Jack then, clearly the revolutionaries had no right to secede from the United Kingdom.
God Save the Queen
>>1245752
As long you're admitting that it's not a constitutional argument, but one of self-interest, hoist whatever flag you want.
>>1244378
>Was he a hero or a villain?
Who thinks this way about historical figures? Fuck, you people are retarded.
>>1244378
Did he actually do anything other than the war
>>1244406
Best post, desu.
He was neither.
>>1244378
He was a big guy
>>1244378
Is the south the epitome of talk shit, get hit.
>>1249462
HE COMMITTED WAR CRIMES. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON THEY WON. YANKS NEED TO PAY FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE
>>1244603
South Carolina had sold that for to the fed decades before
It was not a part of the state of South Carolina, and you know it cunt
>>1249771
*fort
He was a real human bean.
>>1249762
>own people in slavery and treat them like absolute shit
>talk about war crimes
>>1251657
They didn't think of slaves as people though.
>>1251660
Southerners aren't people either.
>>1251661
I don't disagree I'm just telling you how they felt at the time.
>>1244378
he was mean to proud americans
>>1244949
Washington and Hamilton would of despised the south for seceding.
>>1245100
Because in 240 years there has been one war in the United States. How many major wars did Europe have in that time?
Because agreeing to abide by a democratically elected government and a mutually developed set of laws has allowed us to remain internally peaceful and powerful for over 150 years.
Because the USA and the CSA wouldn't have just stopped fighting and agreed to be peaceful neighbors. They would have had at least 2 more wars at least as bloody and probably settled into an England Vs. France type rivalry at least through WW2.
>>1245752
How small of a region is allowed to secede? If I find a load of gold under my house can I just declare secession in order to avoid paying tax on it?
Even if you set some arbitrarily limit to who is allowed to secede how do you control it? If I can just decide that a law no longer applies to me when it becomes convenient then how do you keep the CSA together?
>>1253552
None of that addresses what I said though.
Are you saying it's okay to conquer another people as long as it's for "internal safety and stability?"
If that's the case, then why even bother pretending like American Citizens have any say in their government. According to your views a people's right to self determination is trumped by the need for some arbitrary (What defines "internal"? The former US borders? The extent of former US citizens? Why not take over all of South and North America at this rate) idea of "internal stability." We might as well have an autocratic monarchy or something, because the idea of people being able to choose their government (as in, a Republic, what this country aspires to be), is essentially dead if "internal stability" takes precedent over that.
Besides, you really think there won't be a war again in the future? In all likelihood a Civil War II: Electric Boogaloo will have to happen at some point, and this time it will be basically red counties fighting blue counties rather than North vs South. No one like having their interests and political goals curbed time and again by a faction that lives nowhere near them, and has no understanding of their lives or values. The more politically polarized the Nation becomes, the closer we get to one side taking violent action against the other.
>>1253576
Secession (at least in the context of the Civil War), was performed by democratically elected officials of the various State Governments, as representatives of those governments. One random person cannot secede because they are not a sovereign state.
Governments secede, random people do not.
>>1244413
t. Cletus
