Abraham Lincoln, A Good President?

 Hey guys, this is an issue that I have been dealing with recently.  I can see poitns for both sides.  I also came across this article on www.capmag.com Let me know what you guys think. Thanks

 Wow guys sorry I'm a dumbass.  Didnt post the artilce link.  here is the article link http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=5100

I'm not sure what the criteria for a 'good' president is, since government exists on the basis of coercion. But anyway...

He led the country into the bloodiest war in American history in order to keep the states from exercising their right to secede from the union. Definitely not a good president.

nje5019:

I'm not sure what the criteria for a 'good' president is, since government exists on the basis of coercion. But anyway...

He led the country into the bloodiest war in American history in order to keep the states from exercising their right to secede from the union. Definitely not a good president.

 What did you think about the arguments made in thr article though? Did you read it?  And I entitled my thread as such because I knew it would get some attention lol. Cheap ploy but I hope it works.

*boinks the Lincoln cult*

Yes, but the problem with the article is that it calls the south's effort to secede a 'rebellion'. The south had every right to secede and the north (led by lincoln) started a war over it, attempting to coerce the south into staying in the union. The article also overlooks the fact that slavery was on its way out anyway and there was no reason that a war would have been needed to end slavery.

 

nje5019:

Yes, but the problem with the article is that it calls the south's effort to secede a 'rebellion'. The south had every right to secede and the north (led by lincoln) started a war over it, attempting to coerce the south into staying in the union. The article also overlooks the fact that slavery was on its way out anyway and there was no reason that a war would have been needed to end slavery.

 

 

 I agree, however the one point I agree with was the issue of the constitution.  How could we allow slavery with a constitution that talked about inalinable rights for all men?  It seems to me that by denying them those rights, the north may have had a morla right to stop slavery, because in essance the south was in violation of the contract that is the constitution.  Am I wrong?

 moral right* sorry about that

From the article: "To have not responded at that moment with the use of force would have been to concede that the government did not have the right to govern and protect its own property, what sort of government would that have been? It would have been no government at all." What a shame Lincoln didn't take a different course.

Brainpolice:

*boinks the Lincoln cult*

Brainpolice seems to have a problem/fetish/lifestyle choice with boinking random abstractions...

Aristotle100:

How could we allow slavery with a constitution that talked about inalinable rights for all men?

It doesn't. You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence. And though the phrase about inalienable rights is the most quoted part of the document, it is always taken out of context. The theme of the declaration is neither equality nor individual rights but the right of political societies to secede and govern themselves.

Libertas est Veritas:

Brainpolice seems to have a problem/fetish/lifestyle choice with boinking random abstractions...

I think the Lincoln cult could better be described as an omnipresent abstraction. And I will second it. Boink them!

 

 

Abraham Lincoln, A Good President?

Wow dude, you just shouted "F_CK" in church.

MacFall:

Wow dude, you just shouted "F_CK" in church.

 

 lol no doubt! 

Also, I disagree with that article because the author is clearly not learned in economics or history.  He stated that Russert made Ron Paul look foolish. Haha is he serious?  If you watch Tim Russert for like 10 mins you will realize that the only person that he can make look stupid is himself!

 

As has already been mentioned by other posters, the author of the article would do well to learn a bit of history and economics. It would also be lovely if he'd look up the definition of the word republic. Perhaps I'm asking too much of him, but this Marriott fellow might do well to actually do some research on Ron Paul as well. Yes, I know, heaven forbid an author knows a thing or two about the subject of his article.

 

But here are my favorite gems:

"It would have been no government at all, and therein lies what Mr. Paul was most likely going for."

Oh yes, Ron Paul the anarchist...

"Does Paul not believe the country was founded on the idea that all men were created equal? Does he not believe that all men have unalienable rights, among them to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

I feel the author's pain. I too can't stand all of these totalitarian, tyrannical, anti-liberty libertarians...

"His latest comments on Lincoln and the Civil War merely underline his irrational assault on war and the use of force, even in self-defense or for the protection of liberty (American or any other apparently)."

This seems to be the moment Marriott forgets he's writing about Ron Paul and instead begins discussing Mahatma Gandhi.

 

"There are things even more horrible than war, like the loss of life and liberty, like slavery."

Where to begin... Firstly, Lincoln's policies make Bush look like a champion of civil liberties. Secondly, Lincoln was the first president to issue a military draft, perhaps the most conspicuous form of state-sponsored slavery. And finally, isn't the loss of life an inherent feature of war? Didn't the author write this article in order to defend the loss of 600,000 lives? This fellow doesn't appear to be very thoughtful.

Aristotle100:

I agree, however the one point I agree with was the issue of the constitution.  How could we allow slavery with a constitution that talked about inalinable rights for all men?  It seems to me that by denying them those rights, the north may have had a morla right to stop slavery, because in essance the south was in violation of the contract that is the constitution.  Am I wrong?

William Lloyd Garrison suggested that the best way to end slavery would have been for the north to secede!  (And not force escaped slaves to be sent back to their putative "owners")

Aristotle100:

 

 I agree, however the one point I agree with was the issue of the constitution.  How could we allow slavery with a constitution that talked about inalinable rights for all men?  It seems to me that by denying them those rights, the north may have had a morla right to stop slavery, because in essance the south was in violation of the contract that is the constitution.  Am I wrong?

War of Southern Independance is to slavery As War of American Independance is to slavery. The american colonies did not seceed over slavery and neither did the south. And the agressors of both wars (GB and the north) did not initialize force to end slavery. Both wanted to protect their economic interests and national standing. The emancipation proclaimation was "A military necessity" according to lincoln, not to mention it alienated the south from European support (since they had just had a political revolution in response to slavery).

 

 Thanks for all the responses and opinions guys, I appreciate it them a lot. Like I said this is just something that I had been mulling over in my head for a little while.