The American Lenin

[FaninAma]

Just ran across this article. Thought Homey(and others) might find it interesting.

http://www.civilwarhistory.com/_/Articles/theamericanlenin.htm

[FaninAma]

And another that compares him to Stalin:

http://www.americanstalin.com/

I tend to think both comparisons are valid.

[Jerk]

I thought this was going to be about Hillary.

[Mongo]

Sicem-nip

[Okla-homey]

Abraham Lincoln did what he had to do to save this country while it was being assailed by desperate foes bent on tearing it asunder in order to perpetuate their warped version of "freedom."

He had faults like all men, but he deserves his place in the pantheon of the "Greatest Americans."

Those are my words, and they are my final words on the subject.

[Octavian]

his stances on modern issues are debatable....he raises some good points that I agree with.


his historical analysis of Lincoln as a parallel to Lenin (to be kind) is mental diarrhea

[SicEmBaylor]

He killed the patient in order to cure the disease.
I'm not sure how having a reduced United States would have caused the United States to cease to exist entirely unless the remaining union states had decided to "throw the towel in" unless everyone stayed put.

I'm not interested in having this debate for the nth time, but suffice it to say I agree with the article.

[OU Adonis]

Lincoln killed more American's than any other enemy the US ever had.

[OklahomaTuba]

Lincoln killed more American's than any other enemy the US ever had.

Yeah, cause the south had absolutly nothing whatsoever to do with any of that.

What a bunch of BS. :rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

That article is a laugher. I cannot believe any educated person would actually read this and think this was a good article.

One thing really stood out to me:


The fact is, Lincoln didn't abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over -- income taxation and military conscription to which newly "freed" blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites.

I wonder if the author of this retarded article and the slave trade apologist on this board realize the South ALSO had conscription and ALSO taxed income and property?????

Well, I guess since the confederacy was already FOR slavery, this shouldn't have come as any surprise then.

Again, there was NO DIFFERENCE between the bigots paradise and the US, except the bigots paradise had a STRONGER centralized federal government and owning, buying and selling other human beings was A OK!

Again, total Bullshiat.

Thank GOD Lincoln did what we did. If this nation was broken in half in the 1860's, Lord knows what this world would look like today.

[OU Adonis]

First off. Slavery was morally wrong and I don't see how anyone could agree with that. But at the time it was LEGAL. A fault of all Americans to allow it, not just the south.

The war did not start because of slavery, but Lincoln made slavery an issue to keep any more states from succeeding.

Slavery could of died a peaceful death. Instead it killed a larger percentage of the US population than any other war. It also created an environment of hatred that lasted for over a hundered years.

[SicEmBaylor]

First off. Slavery was morally wrong and I don't see how anyone could agree with that. But at the time it was LEGAL. A fault of all Americans to allow it, not just the south.

The war did not start because of slavery, but Lincoln made slavery an issue to keep any more states from succeeding.

It's a lost cause arguing that. It's even a lost cause convincing people (regardless of what they think of slavery or even preserving the union) that an unfortunate result of the war was the destruction of dual sovereignty between the states and Federal government.

To put things into a different perspective...
If the South had tried to impose slavery on the northern states and had the power of the Federal government on their side to impose that will then I'd readily support the northern states had they seceded as a result.

[OklahomaTuba]

The war did not start because of slavery, but Lincoln made slavery an issue to keep any more states from succeeding.

Again, total bull****.

If slavery wasn't the main issue, then tell me why the confederates basically copied and pasted the US constitution and called it theirs?

Oh wait, they did put one thing back in, and that was slavery. But of course, we are ignoring this as this had nothing to do with the war whatsoever. :rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

To put things into a different perspective...
If the South had tried to impose slavery on the northern states and had the power of the Federal government on their side to impose that will then I'd readily support the northern states had they seceded as a result.

Well then, you should check out some of the large battle sites in and around Washington DC, when the south tried to invade it.

Or better yet, look up Lee's "Invasion of the North".

I think that would cover the whole "south trying to impose slavery on the nothern states" thing. Just so happens that was the bloodiest day in US history.

Oh, but of course that was Lincolns fault, no doubt.

[OU Adonis]

Again, total bull****.

If slavery wasn't the main issue, then tell me why the conderates basically copied and pasted the US constitution and called it theirs?

Oh wait, they did put one thing back in, and that was slavery. But of course, we are ignoring this as this had nothing to do with the war whatsoever. :rolleyes:

What a stupid arguement. The war was fought based around "states rights". Which was much bigger than any single topic. If you asked any southern states back in that time "we will guarentee you the right to own slaves, but we will strip states rights" they would of screamed Bull@#!! and still would of succeeded.

Lincoln acted unconstitutionally in many ways. Its revisionist history at its best.

[Ash]

se·cede /sɪˈsid/
–verb (used without object), -ced·ed, -ced·ing. to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.

suc·ceed /səkˈsid/
–verb (used without object) 1. to happen or terminate according to desire; turn out successfully; have the desired result: Our efforts succeeded.
2. to thrive, prosper, grow, or the like: Grass will not succeed in this dry soil.
3. to accomplish what is attempted or intended: We succeeded in our efforts to start the car.
4. to attain success in some popularly recognized form, as wealth or standing: The class voted him the one most likely to succeed.
5. to follow or replace another by descent, election, appointment, etc. (often fol. by to).
6. to come next after something else in an order or series.
–verb (used with object) 7. to come after and take the place of, as in an office or estate.
8. to come next after in an order or series, or in the course of events; follow.

[OklahomaTuba]

What a stupid arguement. The war was fought based around "states rights". Which was much bigger than any single topic. If you asked any southern states back in that time "we will guarentee you the right to own slaves, but we will strip states rights" they would of screamed Bull@#!! and still would of succeeded.

Lincoln acted unconstitutionally in many ways. Its revisionist history at its best.

If that was truly the case, why then did the confederacy use THE SAME constitution??

By the way, incase you didn't know, the rebels also made the federal government MUCH stonger than what the Union had, by giving the president a line item veto.

States rights my ***.

[OU Adonis]

Thats what I get for doing that in word for spell check. :o

[SicEmBaylor]

If that was truly the case, why then did the confederacy use THE SAME constitution??

By the way, incase you didn't know, the rebels also made the federal government MUCH stonger than what the Union had, by giving the president a line item veto.

States rights my ***.

1)I've explained this to you before. The south did not have a problem with the written Constitution. They loved the written constitution and seceded in large part because they didn't believe that constitution was being properly observed. It's like a modern conservative complaining about judicial interpretation. The reason they had a nearly identical constitution is because they believed in a Federal Republic with limited and restrained national government.

They were not rebelling against the constitution; they were rebelling against the abuse of that constitution.

2)A line item veto has nothing to do with states' rights. It does give the President more power but at the expense of Congress not the expense of the individual states. Many many conservatives support a line item veto for budget and appropriations legislation.

[OU Adonis]

If that was truly the case, why then did the confederacy use THE SAME constitution??

By the way, incase you didn't know, the rebels also made the federal government MUCH stonger than what the Union had, by giving the president a line item veto.

States rights my ***.

Because the consitution was a good document, it was the man who did several unconstitutional acts they had a problem with.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/statesrights.html


http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861307.html


http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/statesri.html


*edited* sicEm beat me to it.

[OklahomaTuba]

Because the consitution was a good document, it was the man who did several unconstitutional acts they had a problem with.

Well, its good to know they seperated from the country, destroyed the lives of millions and helped kill 600,000+ young men, all cause they had a problem with one guy.

:rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

The reason they had a nearly identical constitution is because they believed in a Federal Republic with limited and restrained national government.

They were not rebelling against the constitution; they were rebelling against the abuse of that constitution.

Well, one would think they might just happen to change the constitution just a little as to not let such abuse happen again.

Oh, but they didn't. Opps.

Instead, they just focused their attention to making sure the plantations had plenty help, so they could get rich off that tabbacy.

Again, you are fooling yourself if you don't think this this was about slavery and the all mighty dollar.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, its good to know they seperated from the country and helped kill 600,000+ young men, all cause they had a problem with one guy.

:rolleyes:

It wasn't that one guy and wasn't even a problem with the Republican Party although both inflamed the situation beyond repair. This had been an ongoing fight with northern Whigs.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, one would think they might just happen to change the constitution just a little as to not let such abuse happen again.

Oh, but they didn't. Opps.

Instead, they just focused their attention to making sure the plantations had plenty help, so they could get rich off that tabbacy.

Again, you are fooling yourself if you don't think this this was about slavery and the all mighty dollar.

Oh it was about money. Tariffs and slavery both were major aspects of that. In fact, almost all of it had to do with money in some shape, form, or fashion.

Slavery was the hot button issue, but really the major longstanding fight had to do with Northern tariffs and subsidies for northern manufacturers at the expense of southern exporters who favored free-trade.

[OklahomaTuba]

It wasn't that one guy and wasn't even a problem with the Republican Party although both inflamed the situation beyond repair. This had been an ongoing fight with northern Whigs.

Don't tell me, tell adonis and the guy that thinks Lincoln = Lennin or hitler or whatever.

[SicEmBaylor]

Don't tell me, tell adonis and the guy that thinks Lincoln = Lennin or hitler or whatever.

Lincoln was a tyrant, but hardly a Hitler. Possibly a bit closer to Lenin as far as the consolidation of power goes.

[OklahomaTuba]

Oh it was about money. Tariffs and slavery both were major aspects of that. In fact, almost all of it had to do with money in some shape, form, or fashion.

Slavery was the hot button issue, but really the major longstanding fight had to do with Northern tariffs and subsidies for northern manufacturers at the expense of southern exporters who favored free-trade.

The plantation owners obviously had no problem killing hundreds of thousands in order to keep them slaves pickin and plowin the fields.

And yet, Lincoln is the bad guy here.

Wow.

[OklahomaTuba]

Lincoln was a tyrant, but hardly a Hitler. Possibly a bit closer to Lenin as far as the consolidation of power goes.

I guess, but better to be the tryant that fought to free people based on principle than to be the one that fights to keep people in bondage for nothing more than material greed.

[SicEmBaylor]

The plantation owners obviously had no problem killing hundreds of thousands in order to keep them slaves pickin and plowin the fields.

And yet, Lincoln is the bad guy here.

Wow.

Killing hundreds of thousands? Is that number from the Anal Book of Statistics?

[SicEmBaylor]

I guess, but better to be the tryant that fought to free people based on principle than to be the one that fights to keep people in bondage for nothing more than material greed.

But if he fought for free people then why did he say otherwise at every opportunity prior to the war and during the war until mid-late '62 or so?

If that is so why did Lincoln and the party added a plank to the GOP platform reaffirming their belief that each state be allowed to deal with its own domestic issues?


4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

Now, to be fair the platform of 1860 does go on to affirm the belief that all men are created equal and should be free (which I completely agree with), but at the GOP went out of its way to deny they had an interest in ending slavery by the point of bayonet.

[Octavian]

Lincoln was a tyrant, but hardly a Hitler. Possibly a bit closer to Lenin as far as the consolidation of power goes.

If the consolidation of power makes one a tyrant, there have only been a few non-tryannical U.S. presidents since the Civil War's end....and absolutely ZERO since Herbert Hoover.


Historical comparisons are always ugly, but the serious intellectual stab at comparing Lincoln to Lenin is possibly the most grossly flawed attempt I've ever seen.


Lincoln to Stalin (and I didn't even read whatever that was) warrants the same sort of a response that a Bud Wilkinson-Ron Zook conversation would deserve.....silence.

[Octavian]

I guess, but better to be the tryant that fought to free people based on principle than to be the one that fights to keep people in bondage for nothing more than material greed.


:D


I'd use this as my sig but lurkers and such who aren't familiar w/ your supply-side love affair and disdain for leftist radicalism just wouldn't get it

[1stTimeCaller]

no doubt. does the author not realizt that Lincoln was an American and Stalin and Lenin were Russians?

[TUSooner]

Abraham Lincoln did what he had to do to save this country while it was being assailed by desperate foes bent on tearing it asunder in order to perpetuate their warped version of "freedom."

He had faults like all men, but he deserves his place in the pantheon of the "Greatest Americans."

Those are my words, and they are my final words on the subject.

Hear him! Hear him!
Homey's 100% right, and I'm not punching this tar baby, either.

[FaninAma]

Abraham Lincoln did what he had to do to save this country while it was being assailed by desperate foes bent on tearing it asunder in order to perpetuate their warped version of "freedom."

He had faults like all men, but he deserves his place in the pantheon of the "Greatest Americans."

Those are my words, and they are my final words on the subject.

Couldn't disagree more. All dictators and tyrants give worthy reasons for their tyranny and persecution of the populace. Stalin, I am sure, was "dedicated" to promoting worker's rights against the proletariat as described in the Communist Manifesto as well as preserving national security against those who would overthrow the communist regime. Lenin and Moa Tse Tung both professed high sounding principles as a reason for their murderous regimes.

So by your line of reasoning they were all justified in murdering millions of their fellow countrymen....after all it was justified under the premise of preserving the government or Union.

You're just buying the rewritten historical picture of Lincoln as the savior of the Union. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The only person whose policies tore the country assunder and killed millions of his fellow countrymen was Lincoln's. So I guess that qualifies him for a place along side Benedict Arnold.

The Libertarians have it right on Lincoln's rightful place in American history.

[FaninAma]

If the consolidation of power makes one a tyrant, there have only been a few non-tryannical U.S. presidents since the Civil War's end....and absolutely ZERO since Herbert Hoover.


Historical comparisons are always ugly, but the serious intellectual stab at comparing Lincoln to Lenin is possibly the most grossly flawed attempt I've ever seen.


Lincoln to Stalin (and I didn't even read whatever that was) warrants the same sort of a response that a Bud Wilkinson-Ron Zook conversation would deserve.....silence.

I agree about Herbert Hoover but his contribution towards centralization of government powers and trashing the Constituion were nothing compared to the havoc Lincoln caused.

Again, show me how Lincoln's methods differed significantly from any other tyrant's in history.

Suspension of civil rights. Check

Using military might to force people who disagree with you to bend to your will. Check.

Silencing those who disagree with you. Check.

Using military force in the most brutal methods possible against the civilian population of your enemies to break their will. Check.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck.......

[BeetDigger]

Just ran across this article. Thought Homey(and others) might find it interesting.

http://www.civilwarhistory.com/_/Articles/theamericanlenin.htm


I hope that anyone who is going to take a economic position on the policies of Lincoln will have read research by Fogel Robert Fogel (http://gsbportal.chicagogsb.edu/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_314_215_0_43/http%3B/gsbportal.chicagogsb.edu/Facultycourse/Portlet/FacultyDetail.aspx?min_year=20064&max_year=20073&person_id=160084&lastName=&firstName=&selFields=&src=FacultyList.aspx&search=False). He won the Nobel by studying economic history and has written on the economics of the Civil War. Mr. Smith makes economic claims, therefore I would hope that he has studied the subject and isn't just throwing out annectodal assessments.

[FaninAma]

Again, total bull****.

If slavery wasn't the main issue, then tell me why the confederates basically copied and pasted the US constitution and called it theirs?

Oh wait, they did put one thing back in, and that was slavery. But of course, we are ignoring this as this had nothing to do with the war whatsoever. :rolleyes:

You didn't read the second article, did you?

The more I learn about Lincoln the more I believe he was a politician ahead of his times in so much that he catered to the Big Business/Industrialist wishes and sought to centralize authority in the hands of a few elitists sitting in Washington DC so that they might control the economic infrastucture of the country.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about keeping the South subservient to the North in order to force the South to sell their raw materials to the Northern industrialists at an artificially low price.

[FaninAma]

I hope that anyone who is going to take a economic position on the policies of Lincoln will have read research by Fogel Robert Fogel (http://gsbportal.chicagogsb.edu/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_314_215_0_43/http%3B/gsbportal.chicagogsb.edu/Facultycourse/Portlet/FacultyDetail.aspx?min_year=20064&max_year=20073&person_id=160084&lastName=&firstName=&selFields=&src=FacultyList.aspx&search=False). He won the Nobel by studying economic history and has written on the economics of the Civil War. Mr. Smith makes economic claims, therefore I would hope that he has studied the subject and isn't just throwing out annectodal assessments.

Can you give us a quick synopsis of what he has written?

[Pricetag]

Call me kooky, but I have a really hard time giving credibility to a site with a banjo MIDI playing in the background.

[royalfan5]

If the South wanted to write the History of the Civil War, they should have won the war.

[Octavian]

Again, show me how Lincoln's methods differed significantly from any other tyrant's in history.

Suspension of civil rights. Check

Using military might to force people who disagree with you to bend to your will. Check.

Silencing those who disagree with you. Check.

Using military force in the most brutal methods possible against the civilian population of your enemies to break their will. Check.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck.......


.....then it must be George Bush? ;)

or FDR? or JFK....or Ronald Reagan.



I think we're probably disagreeing on a value judgement here. I don't view Lincoln as "wreaking havoc" on the Constitution b/c I think the North and South were eventually going to settle their centuries-old dispute through war at some point because their very partnership was based on look-the-other-way contradictions that couldn't be reconciled.


Someone was going to have to deal with the many contradtions upon which the Constitution was based. Many of the Founders knew it before they ever signed it. The regional compromises could only last so long and as America grew economically and geographically, it was only a matter of time.


His actions didn't manifest the situation....the situation was already there.

[Jerk]

We've all hashed this out before and I see no need to do it again.

What we should be talking about is how to return to a Constitutional Republic today.

1. Pray tell, how in the hell did the Supreme Court interpret the Commerce Clause as basically saying "anything the gov't wants to do, it can do"?

2. What the hell happened to the 10th Amendment? Maybe one of you enlightened law people can tell me that?

3. What is the use of states today? We were supposed to have 50 different experiments, but what we have is a multi-layered welfare state. Might as well do away with them; afterall, laws that cover NYC should also be good for rural Montana, right :rolleyes:?

There are 3 things the .gov should do:

1. Defend the nation and its borders (which they aren't doing)
2. Transportation (build roads, air traffic control, etc)
3. Run a post office.

Everything else should and could be handled by the states.

You people that want big gov't to take care of everybody are going to get it. And this big gov't got its roots from Lincoln. It grows when Republicans are in power, and it grows when Democrats are in power.

Universal Healthcare is coming, so get ready for the .gov to further take control of a major aspect of your lives. And get some vaseline, you'll need it.

As a conservative/libertarian hybrid, I'm thinking about switching parties to libertarian. The 2 issues I'm not a libertarian on are the war in iraq and abortion...but maybe I'm still close enough to making the jump.

[royalfan5]

The post office shouldn't be a Federal Gov't thing. The post is something that can and should be handled by private business.

[C&CDean]

The post office shouldn't be a Federal Gov't thing. The post is something that can and should be handled by private business.

Really? You think so? How much is it gonna cost you to mail a letter to your Aunt Frigid up on the Ketchican Penninsula in Alaska? Or to your cousin Goobwad over in Bunghole Lick, WV? Right now, it's .39. You think a private carrier is gonna carry mail by floatplane, snowmobile, dogsled, and snowshoes for .39? And what about P.O. boxes? And the protection the federal government gives to your mail?

I am in agreement that most things should be private, but the post isn't one of them.

[royalfan5]

Really? You think so? How much is it gonna cost you to mail a letter to your Aunt Frigid up on the Ketchican Penninsula in Alaska? Or to your cousin Goobwad over in Bunghole Lick, WV? Right now, it's .39. You think a private carrier is gonna carry mail by floatplane, snowmobile, dogsled, and snowshoes for .39? And what about P.O. boxes? And the protection the federal government gives to your mail?

I am in agreement that most things should be private, but the post isn't one of them.All my relatives use email. I mail at most 3 things a year. I can get packages from FedEx and UPS. I'm not doing anything illegal, so what do I need protection from? I don't need a P.O. box. Private Organizations would fill my needs just fine.

[Mongo]

All my relatives use email. I mail at most 3 things a year. I can get packages from FedEx and UPS. I'm not doing anything illegal, so what do I need protection from? I don't need a P.O. box. Private Organizations would fill my needs just fine.

How do you expect to get your "JUGGS" and "Swank" in a cheap, timely manner?

[royalfan5]

How do you expect to get your "JUGGS" and "Swank" in a cheap, timely manner?
I have high speed internet, what do I need magazines for. I have anything I want at my fingertips.

[C&CDean]

All my relatives use email. I mail at most 3 things a year. I can get packages from FedEx and UPS. I'm not doing anything illegal, so what do I need protection from? I don't need a P.O. box. Private Organizations would fill my needs just fine.

Well since everybody in the U.S.A. lives in Nowheresville, NE, and all their kin live within a rock's throw, and the only thing they ever get in the "mail" is tractor parts then I guess you're right.

[Jerk]

I can't wait to see how people react, the same people who vote for politicians who bring us socialized medicine, when the gov't says you need to go get your medical ID card, and they do, and they are assigned a Doctor, so they go to this assigned Doctor, and on the wall is the medical degree from the University of Grenada. I will be laughing my arse off.

I'm going to go to my Doctor and pay cash, no matter if it's legal or not. I have a damned good doctor.

I had an experience with a bad doctor last year...I pray that all you people who support universal healthcare and socialized medicine get stuck with the most incompetent quak this side of the Mississippi River. Heh, just remember, the .gov knows whats best for you, especially Hillary.

[royalfan5]

Well since everybody in the U.S.A. lives in Nowheresville, NE, and all their kin live within a rock's throw, and the only thing they ever get in the "mail" is tractor parts then I guess you're right.
And my plan to jack this thread is now complete.

[C&CDean]

And my plan to jack this thread is now complete.

Not quite. We bought a 348 John Deere square baler this weekend. Got my first John Deere hat.

[Jerk]

Not quite. We bought a 348 John Deere square baler this weekend. Got my first John Deere hat.

Now you're 'hip' like Ashton Kutcher.

[C&CDean]

Now you're 'hip' like Ashton Kutcher.

Yeah, I've always wanted to be like whoeverthe****thatis.

[Jerk]

Yeah, I've always wanted to be like whoeverthe****thatis.


He's the young dude on MTV that does the "You've been punked" shows. He's either dating or married to Demi Moore. He made wearing Deere hates 'popular' with high school kids.

I couldn't figure out why he wanted to be with Demi until I saw the movie 'Strip Tease'

I can say he has two nice reasons.

[royalfan5]

Not quite. We bought a 348 John Deere square baler this weekend. Got my first John Deere hat.
Should have bought a New Holland. You're just paying for paint with Deere.

[OklahomaTuba]

:D


I'd use this as my sig but lurkers and such who aren't familiar w/ your supply-side love affair and disdain for leftist radicalism just wouldn't get it

Meh, maybe they would.

Besides, most people realize that no other ideology leaves people behind economically and human rights wise more than leftist radicalism.

No ideology has probably killed more people either, but thats just guess.

[FaninAma]

If the South wanted to write the History of the Civil War, they should have won the war.

Now that is a statement we can all agree with.

I have seen treatises written about why the Southern military leaders lost the war partly due to the fact that they refused to attack the North's civilian populations like the North did to the South. In other words, they argued that part of the reason the South lost was because they weren't as ruthless as Lincoln and the Northern armies under Sherman and Grant. And yes I am aware of the Cherokee General Watie and his guerilla attacks on Kansas but they were small scale and totally unlike the massive destruction of Southern cities like Atlanta and Vicksburg.

How many commanders did Lincoln can until he found the henchmen who would conduct the war with the brutality he desired?

Tuba, I bet you think the Iraqi war was really started over weapons of mass destruction, too.

The reason I dredged this all up is because I had a discussion with my 16 year old daughter concerning the fact that her history teacher claims Lincoln was the greatest President in US history. I had her do a Google search to look at both sides of the issue and she is the one who found the articles I cited at the beginning of the thread.

[Ike]

No ideology has probably killed more people either, but thats just guess.


Ideologies don't kill people. People that believe in their ideologies so blindly that they cannot tolerate disagreement kill people. It's got nothing to do with what they believe and everything to do with how they believe.

[OklahomaTuba]

Now that is a statement we can all agree with.

I have seen treatises written about why the Southern military leaders lost the war partly due to the fact that they refused to attack the North's civilian populations like the North did to the South. In other words, they argued that part of the reason the South lost is because they weren't as ruthless as Lincoln and the Northern armies under Sherman and Grant.

How many commanders did Lincoln can until he found the henchmen who would conduct the war with the britality he wanted?

Tuba, I bet you think the Iraqi war was really started over weapons of mass destruction, too.

Now why in the world would the rebels want to kill people when they could just enslave them to pick cotten and tabacco???? There is a LOT more money in that instead of marching north trying to invade the union states.

And I am not really sure what the Iraq war has to do with this thread, but yes, WMD was a primary reason for the war, among other things.

[OklahomaTuba]

Ideologies don't kill people. People that believe in their ideologies so blindly that they cannot tolerate disagreement kill people. It's got nothing to do with what they believe and everything to do with how they believe.

Can't disagree with that.

Amazing that leftist radicals attract so many blind folks to their cause. One would think they would learn something after seeing what has happened in the USSR, PRC, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, etc

[FaninAma]

Now why in the world would the rebels want to kill people when they could just enslave them to pick cotten and tabacco???? There is a LOT more money in that instead of marching north trying to invade the union states.

And I am not really sure what the Iraq war has to do with this thread, but yes, WMD was a primary reason for the war, among other things.

Again, Lincoln didn't wage this war over slavery. He waged the war to ensure the North would continue to have a cheap supply of raw materials for their new emerging industries trying to compete against European industries.

Do you support open trade with China and other countries who essentially pay their workers slave wages? Do you support raising the minimum wage to a level that can support a family? I hope you show a bit of consistency here and condemn the mistreatment of workers everywhere no matter how much the mistreatment of workers aids the US economy or US businesses.

[OklahomaTuba]

Again, Lincoln didn't wage this war over slavery. He waged the war to ensure the North would continue to have a cheap supply of raw materials for their new emerging industries trying to compete against European industries.

If Lincoln wanted to ensure a cheap supply of raw materials from the south, why did he effectively end the south's endless supply of expendable free labor?

You seem to contradict yourself very much.

[OU Adonis]

If Lincoln wanted to ensure a cheap supply of raw materials from the south, why did he effectively end the south's endless supply of expendable free labor?

You seem to contradict yourself very much.

Lincoln didn't care about slavery until the war had already started.

[BeetDigger]

Can you give us a quick synopsis of what he has written?


I gave you one. Check the link. It has much of his research listed. I am sure that at least some of it can be found out on the innerweb.

If you are asking what his conclusions are, I can't tell you because I didn't take his class nor have I read his research. Note that my post isn't saying that the conclusions by the author are wrong, I just hope that he did some research on economics and particularly the economic studies of the time before making claims.

The author of the article you posted makes claims, but didn't (at least I didn't see them during my initial scan) back them up with research or analysis. I'll look again to see if I missed it the first time. However, if indeed he didn't, then won't put a lot of faith in his economic assertions.

[FaninAma]

If Lincoln wanted to ensure a cheap supply of raw materials from the south, why did he effectively end the south's endless supply of expendable free labor?

You seem to contradict yourself very much.

I would imagine to Lincoln it was an end sum game. On one hand the North faced losing their supply of cheap raw materials to the highest bidders which would have probably been the Europeans. On the other hand the war would disrupt that supply temporarily but at least the South wouldn't be forging new economic and political alliances with Europe.

In the meantime, war is always good for businesses that sell finished products to the army which would include textiles, machinery, weapons, transportation, and building materials. Never mind that Lincoln had to inflate the currency to pay for his war, in the short term his industrialist supporters probably profited immensley off of the things they sold the government.

And you are exactly right about the effects of ending slavery on the South's ability to produce raw materials....that's why Lincoln didn't favor it until he needed it as an issue to jusitfy continuing the war.

As far as throwing out the example of the WMD in Iraq it was intended to be an example of how poiticians give supposedly legitimate, but false, reasons for using military force. Now I happen to agree that military force was needed in the middle east region but not to find weapons of mass destrucion. The reason it was used and needed, IMO, was to change the political dynamics of the region....but that reason would have never passed muster with the American people. So Bush said what he thought he needed to say to garner support for the military effort.

[Vaevictis]

I think you are reading too much into it. It's really very simple:

How often do military leaders allow a region to engage in armed rebellion and secession without a fight? Pretty much never, right?

As soon as the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter, the war was a forgone conclusion, and so were Lincoln's more tyrranical acts -- how else have the leaders of a nation ever put down an armed rebellion? The Confederacy was de facto independent and probably could have remained so and at least eventually forced a favorable settlement had they not done so.

[FaninAma]

I think you are reading too much into it. It's really very simple:

How often do military leaders allow a region to engage in armed rebellion and secession without a fight? Pretty much never, right?

As soon as the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter, the war was a forgone conclusion, and so were Lincoln's more tyrranical acts -- how else have the leaders of a nation ever put down an armed rebellion? The Confederacy was de facto independent and probably could have remained so and at least eventually forced a favorable settlement had they not done so.

Vaevectis, that's the way dictators handle the situation and force people to remain in their system of government. I'm not sure that's how the Founding Father's intended for our country to prosper and continue to maintain its legitimacy with its citizens.

You would have more of a point if the duly elected representatives of the Southern states hadn't voted to secede but had been forced to secede by military force. The process of sucession was a democratic process and, IMO, legal under the Constitution. Lincoln's acts were not democratic and they were not legal under the Constitution.

One doesn't have to be pro-slavery or pro-South to think that Lincoln's actions were unConstitutional and undemocratic, not to mention barbaric.

[OklahomaTuba]

Lincoln didn't care about slavery until the war had already started.

The Lincoln Douglas debates, the Coopers Union Speech and his opinion of Dred Scott would seem to say otherwise.

[OklahomaTuba]

One doesn't have to be pro-slavery or pro-South to think that Lincoln's actions were unConstitutional and undemocratic, not to mention barbaric.

Ironic,
One could say the same thing about the slave owners as well.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'm curious to know or hear some suggestions on how a president would preserve the union he took an oath to preserve and defend, when a handful of states secede over a single issue and then fire on a supply boat

if he does nothing and lets the country go to hell in a handbasket, then he's viewed as weak

i agree with homey on this 100%........i'll just leave it at that

[OklahomaTuba]

I would imagine to Lincoln it was an end sum game. On one hand the North faced losing their supply of cheap raw materials to the highest bidders which would have probably been the Europeans. On the other hand the war would disrupt that supply temporarily but at least the South wouldn't be forging new economic and political alliances with Europe.

In the meantime, war is always good for businesses that sell finished products to the army which would include textiles, machinery, weapons, transportation, and building materials. Never mind that Lincoln had to inflate the currency to pay for his war, in the short term his industrialist supporters probably profited immensley off of the things they sold the government.

And you are exactly right about the effects of ending slavery on the South's ability to produce raw materials....that's why Lincoln didn't favor it until he needed it as an issue to jusitfy continuing the war.

As far as throwing out the example of the WMD in Iraq it was intended to be an example of how poiticians give supposedly legitimate, but false, reasons for using military force. Now I happen to agree that military force was needed in the middle east region but not to find weapons of mass destrucion. The reason it was used and needed, IMO, was to change the political dynamics of the region....but that reason would have never passed muster with the American people. So Bush said what he thought he needed to say to garner support for the military effort.

This is up there with the whole "war for oil" Iraq argument IMO.

[FaninAma]

Ironic,
One could say the same thing about the slave owners as well.

Yes they could, but the slave owners were operating on a premise, accepted by the Founding Fathers, that their actions were legal and as despicable as slavery was it was still supported by the legal precedent of the time.

None of Lincoln's actions were supported by hte Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights, or any democratically voted on precedent.

ANd I understand why you're clinging to the slavery strawman when it has been debunked as a reason for Lincoln's actions by multitudes of other posters since it is the only possible legitimate reason Lincoln's supporters have to justify his actions. So again, I will ask you what is the proper actionof this country when dealing with governments, including our own, who do not treat workers and laborers fairly? Doesn't the way China and other countries around the world treat their workers demand immediate action? Doesn't the quality of life gap between unskilled laborers and the wealthy in our own country demand immediate action? Aren't there modern day "plantation" owners getting rich on the underpaid efforts of their workers?

How do you on one hand support the Civil War based solely on the fact that it ended slavery yet not demand an end to a free trade with regimes like China, Indonesia and even Mexico? Why aren't you at the forefront of demanding a higher minimum wage or better health care coverage for unskilled workers in our own country? After all, unfair treatment is unfair treatment wheter it's called slavery or avoiding the term by paying a low, barely susbsistence level of pay.

[C&CDean]

i'm curious to know or hear some suggestions on how a president would preserve the union he took an oath to preserve and defend, when a handful of states secede over a single issue and then fire on a supply boat

if he does nothing and lets the country go to hell in a handbasket, then he's viewed as weak

i agree with homey on this 100%........i'll just leave it at that

I'm pretty sure Atlanta and Vicksburg were burned to the ground a hell of a long time after the war started. And after a Northern victory was assured.

I think what some of y'all are doing is remembering your history lessons about Abe, and how he freed the slaves and was the greatest prez EVAR. I'm not keen on lumping him up with Lenin, Marx, or Mao, but the dude is on a penny. If he was so damn great, how come Benjamin Harris gets a hunnert, and all Abe ranks is a fiver?

Tuba likes him cause he was the first Republican president.

I would rate him maybe #15 or so in presidents. He sure enough killed more Americans than all the bad guys lumped together. Squared.

[jk the sooner fan]

there are more $5 spots in circulation and in peoples wallets than there are the benji's....

[C&CDean]

OK. I'll trade you all the Lincolns I got one-for-one with those Benjamins. Deal?

[Jerk]

So, who do you guys think would win today if the blue states fought the red states? (let's say the military was split 50/50 and the po po supported their localities)

:pop:

[jk the sooner fan]

OK. I'll trade you all the Lincolns I got one-for-one with those Benjamins. Deal?

who wouldnt?

but your point was that he was only on the "lowly $5"

and i'd submit to you that more people are carrying lincoln in their backpocket than mr franklin

[C&CDean]

I never remember who is who. Is the blue states the bad guys or the good guys?

[C&CDean]

who wouldnt?

but your point was that he was only on the "lowly $5"

and i'd submit to you that more people are carrying lincoln in their backpocket than mr franklin

Getting ***-sweat all over the prez really isn't a sign of respect.

[jk the sooner fan]

keep changing the argument ;)

[skycat]

Washington is on the one. He must rate just outside the top 25.

[C&CDean]

Washington is on the one. He must rate just outside the top 25.

He's also on the quarter. That balances him out. Besides, he was a Freemason, and we all know about those dudes.

[JohnnyMack]

I'm pretty sure Atlanta and Vicksburg were burned to the ground a hell of a long time after the war started. And after a Northern victory was assured.


So was Dresden. So was Hiroshima. So was Nagasaki.

[Vaevictis]

Vaevectis, that's the way dictators handle the situation and force people to remain in their system of government. I'm not sure that's how the Founding Father's intended for our country to prosper and continue to maintain its legitimacy with its citizens.

That's the way everyone handles it. You start a shooting war when you're trying to secede, and the powers that be are going to do their very best to make sure you're on the receiving end of a smackdown. Every time.

You want to secede peacefully, don't ****ing shoot at the government's men, no matter what the provocation. It's that simple. Sometimes it even works.

I'm not casting a judgment on whether Lincoln responding the way he did was the right course of action (ethically). I am saying it was utterly predictable; if you shoot at the authorities, they're going to respond and respond harshly.
Thus it is and has ever been.


You would have more of a point if the duly elected representatives of the Southern states hadn't voted to secede but had been forced to secede by military force. The process of sucession was a democratic process and, IMO, legal under the Constitution. Lincoln's acts were not democratic and they were not legal under the Constitution.

So basically you're saying that the people have an inherent right to secede protected by the 9th Amendment -- which is the only way I can see that they have such a right, given that the right to draw inter-state territorial boundaries is something that requires the consent of both Congress and the state legislatures in question.

[Jerk]

The war would have been an a.ss kicking if the north hadn't out-numbered the south by 3 to 1.

A total asskicking.

[jk the sooner fan]

dont start a fight you cant finish

[Jerk]

dont start a fight you cant finish


I hope it's not.

[Pricetag]

So, who do you guys think would win today if the blue states fought the red states? (let's say the military was split 50/50 and the po po supported their localities)

:pop:
That would be awful. I'd hate to think of our military fighting each other to what I'd have to assume would be a draw with a 50/50 split, all for a bunch of chest-thumping big talkers on both sides who, when it came time to put up or shut up, would likely do nothing.

[Vaevictis]

The war would have been an a.ss kicking if the north hadn't out-numbered the south by 3 to 1.

If the North hadn't outnumbered the South, the South would have just made laws in Congress that it liked instead of seceding. ;)

[Jerk]

If the North hadn't outnumbered the South, the South would have just made laws in Congress that it liked instead of seceding. ;)

I can't argue with that!

[Jerk]

I really think the South would have won if Lee wouldn't have taken the Army of Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania. They should have played defense.

:pop:

Pickett's charge - that was the beginning of the end.

[Vaevictis]

So, who do you guys think would win today if the blue states fought the red states? (let's say the military was split 50/50 and the po po supported their localities)

And as far as this one goes, nobody wins this one. With the technology available, we'd ruin ourselves beyond repair. I don't think either government would survive; IMO, the most likely scenario is some third party comes out of the rubble and sets up shop on the ashes.

[Jerk]

What do you guys think would happen if 50% of all taxpayers didn't send in their dues?

:pop:

[jk the sooner fan]

I really think the South would have won if Lee wouldn't have taken the Army of Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania. They should have played defense.

:pop:

Pickett's charge - that was the beginning of the end.

Joshua Chamberlain changed that battlefield

not Pickett

[Jerk]

And as far as this one goes, nobody wins this one. With the technology available, we'd ruin ourselves beyond repair. I don't think either government would survive; IMO, the most likely scenario is some third party comes out of the rubble and sets up shop on the ashes.

Not if we have a gentlemen's agreement to use only muskets.

[Vaevictis]

I really think the South would have won if Lee wouldn't have taken the Army of Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania. They should have played defense.

IIRC, the morale of his army kind of forced Lee's hand. Keep in mind that back then, if you didn't respond to the mood of your army just right, it would disperse from beneath you.

Also, IIRC, beyond the morale of his army being a concern, Lee had to do something. The Union had mounted a highly effective blockade that the South had no expectations of breaking, and the South had no military manufacturing to speak of. With the expectation of eventual supply shortages, playing defense would have resulted in eventual defeat anyway.

[Jerk]

Joshua Chamberlain changed that battlefield

not Pickett

I had to google that one.

From the Army's website:

CHAMBERLAIN, JOSHUA L.

Rank and organization: Colonel, 20th Maine Infantry. Place and date: At Gettysburg, Pa., 2 July 1863. Entered service at: Brunswick, Maine. Born: 8 September 1828, Brewer Maine. Date of issue: 11 August 1893. Citation: Daring heroism and great tenacity in holding his position on the Little Round Top against repeated assaults, and carrying the advance position on the Great Round Top.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohciv.htm

[jk the sooner fan]

there are a couple of great books about that american hero if you'd like a recommendation

truly a GREAT man......his actions that day prevented the Union flank from collapsing.......which would have seriously swung the battle in Lee's favor

just my opinion.....

[Vaevictis]

Might want to read The Killer Angels. It's a pretty entertaining read on that battle, and apparently even pretty accurate to boot ;)

[Jerk]

I also read this about Chamberlain:

http://www.curtislibrary.com/pejepscot/joshbiog.htm

He seemed like a very honorable man, and highly educated too.

[Jerk]

Who do you guys think would have won if the North had M-16's and the South had AK-47's?

:pop:

North, no doubt. Eugene Stoner created a superior rifle.

[jk the sooner fan]

gods and generals is a better read imo

[C&CDean]

Gone. With. The. Wind.

[Okla-homey]

What do you guys think would happen if 50% of all taxpayers didn't send in their dues?

:pop:

It could never happen for two reasons. 1) most of us work for an employer who is req'd by law to withhold the tax from our pay...thus, the vast majority of folks don't have any option to exercise on whether or not they pay their taxes...unless they quit their jobs and take up residence under a highway overpass.
2) Who's gonna organize this little tax revolt among the millions who would not get their refund if they didn't file a return? Hmmm?.

balderdash.:D

Oh, and one more thing, strategically, the war was lost for the South when Grant took Vicksburg and thus split the Confederacy into two halves. It didn't get as much press because it was in the West and happened the same weekend as Gettysburg.

Frankly, the western Confederate armies (especially the biggest, the Army of Tennessee) were unmitigated disasters. Those armies combined only won one significant stand-up fight in four years of war and thatwas only because Lee had detached a corps (Longstreet) from the Army of Northern Virginia to join Bragg in time for Chickamauga. Even after routing the Yanks, they let them slip away to fight another day. Those were the guys who ultimately captured Atlanta and torched GA and SC.

Bottomline: ANV under Lee = powerful and dangerous almost to the end.

The rest of the Confederate forces?..."Comedy of Errors," poorly led, big time in over their heads. Unable to capitalize on even minor successes. Usually beaten badly everytime they fought both meduim-sized and major engagements

[C&CDean]

So was Dresden. So was Hiroshima. So was Nagasaki.

Last time I checked, it wasn't fellow Americans we blew to Hades and back. Last time I checked, we introduced those fine folks to their maker or emporer, or whoever the hell they worship - with the sole purpose of saving thousands of AMERICAN lives. Surely even you can see the difference comrade.

[Scott D]

Gone. With. The. Wind.

*sigh* ok Lid :eek:

[JohnnyMack]

Last time I checked, it wasn't fellow Americans we blew to Hades and back. Last time I checked, we introduced those fine folks to their maker or emporer, or whoever the hell they worship - with the sole purpose of saving thousands of AMERICAN lives. Surely even you can see the difference comrade.

It was all done to send a message.

[C&CDean]

*sigh* ok Lid :eek:

To be honest, I've never read the book/seen the flick. It just fit.

[C&CDean]

It was all done to send a message.

Well send the message by sending them to hell, not us.

[Scott D]

To be honest, I've never read the book/seen the flick. It just fit.

I guess ifn youse say so miss scarlet. Ah sure hopes that mistah butlah won't be showin' because you know that mistah hamilton will be comin back....or mistah wilkes will realize that he shoulda married you.

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba likes him cause he was the first Republican president.

It's the hat, seriously,

[Jerk]

If Mike Ditka were the General of the CUSA, then the SOUTH would have won...easily...

Northern battlefield losses: 325,000
Southern Battlefield losses: 2, and one horse