652
653

FDR (i.imgur.com)

Quixoticelixorancap が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]tocano 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (86子コメント)

Now do the same basic quote for Lincoln.

[–]rljkeimig 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (83子コメント)

Except instead of "Japanese" put dissenters.

[–]WatevsBrah 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (60子コメント)

My God I love this sub sometimes. In every day life whenever I mention my opinion on Lincoln people think I'm insane. It just makes me sad that people think the things he did were not only not evil, but actually good and courageous. It's so nice having a place where other people get it.

[–]thunderfanH 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (4子コメント)

God I almost wish he wasnt killed. Thats the only reason he is immortalized. If he wasnt he killed he woyldve been impeached and shown his true colors.

[–]jdepps113 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Careful what you wish for. Imagine if Lincoln had managed to pick up a few extra terms in office... <shudders>

[–]jecowa 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Booth was originally only going to kidnap Lincoln, but time travelers persuaded him to assassinate Lincoln instead.

[–]GrenadeCrunker 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

i want to believe

[–]chiguyNon-labelist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I imagine that life in contemporary America would not be much different had Lincoln had another term.

[–]BronzedWarGod 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (34子コメント)

And if you dislike Lincoln then you must be pro slavery!

[–]WatevsBrah 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (33子コメント)

This is pretty much it. They have succeeded over the years in convincing people that the Civil War was purely about slavery. Ergo, if you think Lincoln was an evil dictator you must support slavery.

Obviously slavery was a horrible thing. It probably would have lasted a few more years without the south losing the war. But a good thing coming from an evil action does not make the action just. Plus, although it's not really applicable to this exact argument, I love showing people what a racist Lincoln was in the first place.

[–]GrenadeCrunker 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

could you please elaborate? Ive heard of the lies behind Lincoln but have never actually read into it.

[–]EvanHarper 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (30子コメント)

The Civil War was overwhelmingly about slavery with all other issues taking at most a very marginal role.

The power structure in the South was bitterly opposed to any type of gradual emancipation and there is no justification for assuming that slavery would have somehow just went away on its own in "a few more years," that's complete fantasy.

What the hell is up with libertarians and neo-Confederacy, anyway?

[–]Joenz 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm 100% anti-slavery, since the rights of the individual trump all other rights. However, I also believe that it should be within a state's rights to leave the Union.

[–]MatesWithPenguins 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

https://i.imgur.com/0XdGGTN.jpg

[–]untaken-usernameI Voted -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I didn't know Bruce Willis had such profound political ideas.

[–]THeShinyHObbiest 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's only freedom to leave if the reason for leaving is just.

So, Americans leaving the British Empire because of poor representation and unjust taxes? Fine.

A bunch of bastards wanting to keep their right to own people as property? Hell no. Slavery is the ultimate violation of individual rights, and any state which left because of it is in the most disgraceful sort of rebellion.

[–]ReasonReaderHard Line Libertarian 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The Civil War was overwhelmingly about slavery with all other issues taking at most a very marginal role.

Lincoln didn't think so. He made multiple offers, during the war to let the south keep slavery in perpetuity if they'd lay down their weapons and pay the tariffs.

[–]yakboy43mutualist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Source?

[–]superstar69lol 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Read Shelby Foote's civil war trilogy. I recall a quote by Lincoln, early in the war, where Lincoln said, that he would let the south keep slavery if it ended the war one day sooner. Although Lincoln was against slavery he knew that the north would not fight a war explicitly to free the slaves.

[–]untaken-usernameI Voted 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lincoln was a Unionist first, anti-slavery second, there is no doubt about that. But he was staunchly against slavery.

But I don't believe there was ever a formal offer to the South like you speak about. I'd need to see a source that there were "multiple offers during the war to let the South keep slavery."

I imagine you are thinking of the letter Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley in 1862. It was written in response to an editorial Greeley had written about Lincoln saying he lacked resolve and direction in executing the war. Lincoln wrote:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

He ends his letter with this:

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Also, when Lincoln wrote that editorial he had already penned the Gettysburg Address - an executive order freeing all slaves in rebelling states - although that wasn't actually revealed or executed for another year and change.

EDIT: TL;DR: Lincoln was anti-slavery, but he viewed maintaining the Union as more important and his chief duty as President of the United States. His view was the the POTUS was charged with maintaining the Union at any cost, and if that meant slavery would need to be continued then so be it (even though personally he loathed the practice).

[–]Qbenbee 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The fact that slavery went away on its own in Europe years before isn't justification that slavery was on its way out?

[–]untaken-usernameI Voted 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Slavery going away in Europe on its own didn't mean that slavery was bound to go away quickly everywhere else.

Here's a fun fact: slavery in Mauritania, Africa wasn't banned until 1981.

[–]LC_Musicminarchist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (6子コメント)

The Civil War was overwhelmingly about slavery with all other issues taking at most a very marginal role.

Nope. Not logically and not historically. Even if it were, that's a stupid cause to to start killing you own citizens over especially considering it was already on the wait out

The power structure in the South was bitterly opposed to any type of gradual emancipation and there is no justification for assuming that slavery would have somehow just went away on its own in "a few more years," that's complete fantasy.

It went away on it own pretty much everywhere else in the civilized world, INCLUDING the north. Slavery wasn't economically viable anymore. The south wasn't immune to that.

Interestingly enough, the south actually did have a fairly well laid out plan to get rid of slavery, starting by banning slave trading and importation of slaves. Not perfect, but a good enough start.

What the hell is up with libertarians and neo-Confederacy, anyway?

What the hell is up with liberals and the complete and desperate need to control, subjugate and control people?

Why are you opposed to confederacy or rebellion?

[–]THeShinyHObbiest 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even if it were, that's a stupid cause to to start killing you own citizens over especially considering it was already on the wait out

How the hell can somebody who claims to fight for the rights of the individual say that sentence?

When you're a slave, you're property. That is the ultimate violation of individual rights.

I'd say that it's worth fighting to stop it.

[–]Erotic_Shit_ThrowerNot clever enough for an -ist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

"It went away on it own pretty much everywhere else in the civilized world"

No, it went away because my country made it illegal to trade them and used the most powerful navy in the world to enforce it.

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Erotic_Shit_ThrowerNot clever enough for an -ist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    You replied to the wrong bloke!

    [–]untaken-usernameI Voted 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Please take the time to read through this post, which outlines how slavery was very central to the Civil War: Civil War: Slavery or State's Rights?.

    Here is a choice quote:

    The American Civil War was 'about' slavery in that it would not have occurred except for the existence of the institution. ... The South seceded because they had lost control of the federal government, and feared that without this control, slavery (and thus, the political and economic power of the South) would fade naturally. Compare the Civil War with the Nullification Crisis of 1832, when South Carolina actually tried to secede over state's rights (i.e. the right not to be subject to federal tariffs). This "secession" sputtered and failed utterly. There was simply no support in the South for secession (and the armed conflict that would result from such a secession) over mere state's rights. Slavery, on the other hand, was the foundation of the South, and something very much worth fighting and dying for, if necessary.

    Also, I'd suggest you read up more on the history of slavery in the US and the US Constitution, because statements like this:

    Interestingly enough, the south actually did have a fairly well laid out plan to get rid of slavery, starting by banning slave trading and importation of slaves. Not perfect, but a good enough start.

    Are false. The importation of slaves had been banned across the entire US by the Federal government in 1808 and the reason it happened then and not sooner is because the Constitution promises to continue to allow slave imports for 20 years.

    [–]Bounty1Berry 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Mechanization and economics eventually undermine slavery.

    The jobs that slave labour is best suited for are also the jobs that are most mechanizable. Eventually, it becomes cheaper to buy and operate a tractor than to own and feed a slave to do the same tasks.

    Given the same march of technology, specifically internal-combustion powered machinery, I'd expect that agricultural slave labour would have reached economic obsolescence just around 1930.

    At that point, trying to pull the plug on slavery wouldn't be implicitly saying "let's completely implode your entire economy" so some sort of wind-down program would be much more marketable.

    Domestic staff-style slavery, I can't guess offhand, but I'd think that changing living patterns might do a number on it-- it's worth keeping a slave staff around for a plantation with a family of twelve and a few dozen farm slaves to feed and care for, but it's sort of expensive and awkward for a couple living in an urban apartment.

    [–]ReasonReaderHard Line Libertarian 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Given the same march of technology, specifically internal-combustion powered machinery, I'd expect that agricultural slave labour would have reached economic obsolescence just around 1930.

    It was already there by the mid-1800s. Free labor is always more productive than slavery, and owning slaves was already a lose compared to hiring Irishmen.

    [–]Uiluj -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Right, but slaves have a lifespan of 20 on average. Most won't live long enough to see slavery end at 1930.

    But they're just statistics, slavery would've ended eventually.

    [–]AllWrong74Realist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    The Civil War was overwhelmingly about slavery with all other issues taking at most a very marginal role.

    This is very very incorrect. Slavery was a large issue, and it was the hot-button issue of the day. Therefore most other issues were phrased with the language of slavery (the anti-slave party, non-slave states, slave states, etc.). That doesn't mean the war was "overwhelmingly about slavery". Slavery was the terrorism of the day. Every time the government tries to stamp on a new Right, they phrase it in terms of National Security and Terrorist Threat. That doesn't mean those issues are actually because of terrorism.

    [–]EvanHarper 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    That's a... creative... analogy, but it does nothing to address the overwhelming weight of evidence that the Civil War was about slavery.

    The South Carolina secession declaration mentions no contemporary issue besides slavery. All of the other declarations focus on slavery. Confederate Vice-President Stephens called slavery the "foundation" and the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy and the disagreement over slavery "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

    Nobody even thought to deny the centrality of slavery to the Confederacy until like a decade after the war ended. Today, there are essentially no professional historians who argue that the Civil War was not about slavery. It's something associated with pop-culture and with fringe political groups like the Mises Institute and the League of the South. It's scarcely more credible than, say, creationism.

    [–]AllWrong74Realist 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Everything you just said is absolutely true. I just want to quote something for you:

    Slavery was a large issue, and it was the hot-button issue of the day.

    See, that's me agreeing that slavery was a large issue. At no point do I deny the Civil War was about slavery. I deny:

    all other issues taking at most a very marginal role

    Because a document makes reference to slaveholding states or an anti-slavery party, suddenly it's about slavery? That's not the way it works. Politicians have always talked in the language of the hot-button issues. When South Carolina stated, "The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy." it doesn't automatically mean the issue is slavery.

    Again, I don't deny slavery was the biggest issue, I do call shenanigan on the claim that the other issues were marginal.

    [–]iamacontrarianminarchist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    it does nothing to address the overwhelming weight of evidence that the Civil War was about slavery.

    This is an incredibly simplistic view of what is obviously an incredibly complex issue. To give a slightly less simplistic view of the situation, you need to understand that the confederate states wanted slavery. The union did not, however, fight the war over slavery.

    The union fought the war specifically to prevent the confederates from leaving the union, regardless of their reason for wanting to leave.

    [–]Except-For-Reality -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    The union fought the war specifically to prevent the confederates from leaving the union, regardless of their reason for wanting to leave.

    And if the Confederate states left the Union primarily because of the slavery issue, as they did, then the war was largely about slavery.

    [–]zenontherocks 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    This is patently false history. Not only were there slave states that fought for the Union and emancipated states that fought for the Confederacy, Lincoln himself offered to let the south keep their slaves if they surrendered and rejoined the Union. The current narrative is just a case of history being written by the victor to provide justification after the fact.

    [–]EvanHarper 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    there [were ...] emancipated states that fought for the Confederacy

    No, there weren't.

    Lincoln himself offered to let the south keep their slaves if they surrendered and rejoined the Union

    And the South refused such offers because they would not submit to a Federal government that they didn't see as completely reliable on slavery. There was no immediate threat of abolition when they seceded; they did so because the Fugitive Slave Act wasn't going to be enforced, and slavery wasn't going to be extended into the territories, undermining the institution in the long term.

    The current narrative is just a case of history being written by the victor to provide justification after the fact.

    This is a lazy trope, and easily falsifiable. If "history is written by the victors" then why were historians pro-Confederate for almost 100 years after the Civil War? Why are modern historians skeptical of the Mexican-American War, or the Spanish-American War, if they automatically take the side of the victors?

    [–]charizzardd 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm new to Lincoln history. Can you all point me in the direction of some good material to read? (Seriously)

    Thanks!

    [–]durng 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (17子コメント)

    Lincoln won his war so his historians got to write the history about it. Just think about what we would read about him if he had lost. Think about what would happen if some of the worst dictators in history won their wars what we would read about them.

    [–]EvanHarper 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Except that the outstanding feature of Civil War history for some 100 years after Lincoln is that it wasn't "written by the victors," but was quite hostile to the victors and in sympathy with the anti-Reconstruction Democrats.

    It's almost as if you haven't looked into this at all.

    [–]Andrew_Squared -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Shocker!

    [–]GrenadeCrunker 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    what if they did, and historians painted them as genuine people? oh wait.

    [–]stemgang 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (10子コメント)

    600,000 dead to end slavery...which ended peacefully most other places.

    Quite an epitaph.

    [–]untaken-usernameI Voted 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Shouldn't that be the epitaph for the Southern politicians who allowed slavery to continue? To the Southern Congressmen who did everything they could to ensure that for every free state that joined the Union, a corresponding slave state must be added, as well?

    [–]stemgang 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Of course! The South forced the North to invade.

    There was no other way...
    or was there?

    [–]Except-For-Reality 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You understand, of course, that the South fired the first shots in the Civil War? The Union didn't start the war, it just responded as any nation would.

    [–]THeShinyHObbiest 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    They fired on Fort Sumter.

    At that point, they declared war.

    [–]mjxii 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    That's not what the civil war was about at all

    [–]Uiluj 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's one of the things.....

    [–]logicalthinker1libertarian conservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    That's bullshit. Of course it was about slavery.

    [–]mjxii 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    There is a debate going on elsewhere in these comments. You should read it

    [–]untaken-usernameI Voted 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    It's a debate that isn't bothering itself with fact, though.

    [–]Joenz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Some of them did win

    [–]HonestAsshole420 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Maybe they did?

    [–]JackBond1234 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Huh. I haven't heard of people believing Lincoln was evil. I always figured he wasn't as great as people made him out to be though.

    Out of curiosity, what specific things did he do that make him so bad?

    [–]untaken-usernameI Voted 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The two main raps against him are:

    1. Not allowing states to peacefully succeed, and
    2. Suspending the writ of habeus corpus and jailing dissenters during the course of the war

    Although to be fair, the Constitution does allow for (2) during times of rebellion.

    [–]EvanHarper 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (21子コメント)

    Yeah, the problem with this argument is that it's complete horseshit.

    A handful of vocal Confederate supporters were locked up for nothing but talk – famously Vallandingham – but the overwhelming majority of the arrests were for active rebellion; taking up arms against United States troops, sabotaging infrastructure, blockade running, etc.

    [–]rljkeimig 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (20子コメント)

    I'd argue that the important point is that he effectively granted every president the authority to withdraw the right to a trial, due to any given emergency, in whatever circumstance is necessary at the time. The Japanese under FDR, Arabs under Bush, confederates under Lincoln.

    [–]ReasonReaderHard Line Libertarian 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    he effectively granted every president the authority

    No, he set the precedent of getting away with usurping power never legally delegated to him.

    [–]untaken-usernameI Voted 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Article 1, Section 9, yo.

    [–]untaken-usernameI Voted 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Wait, I thought it was the Constitution that granted that right?

    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    Article 1, Section 9.

    [–]rljkeimig 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Article 1 defines the powers of the legislature, not the executive.

    [–]Redsteak 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (11子コメント)

    I agree with your point but I find it hard to imagine the other presidents would have been more pressured to not invoke the "emergency circumstances" reasoning. When you are a world leader and you feel like you have the ability to solve some very pressing problems if only you had some immidiate power, such an option must be very tempting. Quick edit: Also Washington's response to the Whiskey rebellion comes to mind, so Lincoln might not have been the first to do this.

    [–]Uiluj 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

    Whiskey Rebellion was different, Washington's response might have been excessive but they were actually rebelling and refusing to pay taxes. That's different from what FDR, Bush, Obama and Lincoln did which was punish innocent people.

    such an option must be very tempting.

    Abusing power is always tempting, that doesn't make it okay.

    [–]NicoBanvoluntaryist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Taxes are theft. Those refusing to pay them were also innocent victims.

    [–]Uiluj 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Being persecuted for not paying taxes is different from being persecuted for being Japanese. You have to actively not pay taxes even though you know the consequences, whereas being Japanese is not an activity.

    [–]NicoBanvoluntaryist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    How are they diiferent? Neither is justified. People who dont pay taxes arent doing anything wrong. When someone tells you "Give me your money or I will lock you in a cage. And if you resist my cage locking I will kill you" You do have a right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

    [–]Uiluj 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    You have a right to go tell people who threaten to kill you to go fuck themselves, but that doesn't mean you are immune from the consequences of your actions. That's what civil disobedience is about.

    [–]untaken-usernameI Voted 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    You have skipped a step, which I think makes a difference (but you may disagree).

    It's not, "Give me your money or I will lock you in a cage. And if you resist my cage locking I will kill you," but rather, "Give me your money or I will come and take your belongings. And if you resist me taking your belongings then I will kill you."

    Point being, you will not be "put in a cage" if you don't pay your taxes.

    [–]chiguyNon-labelist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    If you actively fight against your own country in a military of another country or succession, do you still retain the same rights as being a citizen? For example, if you are an American citizen and fight against America as a Confederate, don't you kind of give up your rights as a citizen of the country you defect from?

    [–]LC_Musicminarchist 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Human rights have nothing to do with citizenship. Rights are universal regardless of nationality or citizenship

    Only a person from the dark ages would think that human rights are dependent on citizenship or where you happen to live

    [–]chiguyNon-labelist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The problems is that "human rights" as you describe it is vague. Why would someone fighting against me as a Confederate still have the right to a trial in the Union? Can the right to a trial be a "human right" when it inherently involves the government?

    [–]Uiluj 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That's different, though. The Confederates did secede but then they attacked. Or we attacked. Whatever the case may be, they were prepared to kill people in the war, and we were prepared to annex them back into the union. Everything is fair in love and war.

    [–]Kickedbk 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I can google but I'm asking, educate me on Lincoln's negative imact?

    [–]mine_dog_has_no_nose 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Not coming from a point of dissention, I would like to see some evidence?