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
Brainpolice:*boinks the Lincoln cult*
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.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!