No American Flag?

#226
#226
n_huffhines said:
Lincoln oversaw the worst period in American history. 650,000 Americans died on his watch. He couldn't come up with peaceful solutions to anything. He trampled the constitution. He violated international law. He behaved as a dictator. He waged total war on his own people. He wasn't the worst president. He has some redeeming qualities, but it's sheer lunacy to call him a good president. It shows how easily we can be manipulated.
Click to expand...

You're right. He wasn't a good president, he was a great one.


Lincoln made the decision to interpret the United States as perpetual, and ultimately it was he that ensured that the US would not break apart. If you believe Lincoln violated the Constitution, then you must also believe the same about Jackson, TR, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and W. He did what had to be done to preserve the union. He was not a compromising President on slavery like those before him, but he still proposed a constitutional amendment to guarantee slavery in Jan 1861 if other southern states would not secede.

Lincoln's foreign policy was successful because it kept other nations from entering the side of the CSA. The Trent Affair is a great example of what a great president must be: compromising. When the British proposed war, he immediately released the CSA diplomats he had captured. The ability of a president to see his wrongs and then correct them, all publicly, is a trait not easily found.

Lincoln issued the EP, which began the process towards the end of slavery which ultimately ended with the 13th.

He signed into law the Homestead Act, Morrill Act, and a bill that started the transcontinental RR.

His speeches are second to none: House-Divided speech, Gettysburg Address, first and second inaugural addresses

He had wagon loads of books delivered to the White House on military strategy and actually implemented some of his own strategies after he realized how useless McClellan was. Oh, and he came up with at least a part of the anaconda plan; kinda a big deal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#227
#227
He blockaded southern ports denying, civilians food and medicine, among other items adopted in the first Geneva convention.

Whether or not southerners were legally his people/Americans, they were his people/Americans for the purpose of my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#228
#228
n_huffhines said:
He blockaded southern ports denying, civilians food and medicine, among other items adopted in the first Geneva convention.
Click to expand...

So Wilson's aid in blockading the northern coast of Germany in 1915, which by 1918 had killed over 250,000 Germans also makes him a tyrant, yes?

And don't throw around the Geneva Convention because we all know when push comes to shove, no nation gives a $hit.
 
#229
#229
mrorange211 said:
You're right. He wasn't a good president, he was a great one.


Lincoln made the decision to interpret the United States as perpetual, and ultimately it was he that ensured that the US would not break apart. If you believe Lincoln violated the Constitution, then you must also believe the same about Jackson, TR, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and W. He did what had to be done to preserve the union. He was not a compromising President on slavery like those before him, but he still proposed a constitutional amendment to guarantee slavery in Jan 1861 if other southern states would not secede.
Click to expand...

The only one that is debatable as an OK president is Jackson. The rest are garbage, so that point isn't really hitting. Also, none of them trampled the constitution like Lincoln.

Lincoln imprisoned as many as 1500 political enemies in the north.

He imprisoned journalists and congressmen who opposed him.

He suspended habeus corpus and when a supreme court judge challenged him on it, he had a warrant issued for the judge's arrest.

He refused to swap prisoners with the south, leading to untold numbers of deaths in prison camps due to illness, cold, and starvation.

Lincoln put Union above all. That's all he cared about. You might like that ideal. I do not. I would not be willing to sacrifice 2% of our population just so that we can remain a 50-state club. It's idiocy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#230
#230
n_huffhines said:
He blockaded southern ports denying, civilians food and medicine, among other items adopted in the first Geneva convention.

Whether or not southerners were legally his people/Americans, they were his people/Americans for the purpose of my point.
Click to expand...

What was the date of the first GC? And you are telling me all of the southern states were denied access to food and medicine for four years?
 
#231
#231
n_huffhines said:
He blockaded southern ports denying, civilians food and medicine, among other items adopted in the first Geneva convention.

Whether or not southerners were legally his people/Americans, they were his people/Americans for the purpose of my point.
Click to expand...

He did this in the name of dismantling a great evil of mankind.

Southern states advocated the denial of food, medicine and all basic human rights adopted in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.

This is a couple of shades short of saying "British and Americans bombed German cities in WW2. Who cares what the Nazis were doing, lets focus in on relatively minute issues in waging a war against an evil institution."

Oh, wait. Actually you're taking a classical liberal stance regarding history. Congrats, you're a liberal.
 
#232
#232
cspindizzy said:
what was the date of the first gc? And you are telling me all of the southern states were denied access to food and medicine for four years?
Click to expand...

In full terms: 1949

There was a charter adopted in 1864 but it was regarding the treatment of wounded/sick armed forces personnel.

The Civilian protections weren't in place until the main version we know associate with "the Geneva Conventions" from 1949.

So, as with many cases, a severe case of "whoopsie, this isn't accurate but full steam ahead anyway and hope nobody notices" is in play.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#233
#233
agent|orange said:
in full terms: 1949

there was a charter adopted in 1864 but it was regarding the treatment of wounded/sick armed forces personnel.

The civilian protections weren't in place until the main version we know associate with "the geneva conventions" from 1949.

So, as with many cases, a severe case of "whoopsie, this isn't accurate but full steam ahead anyway and hope nobody notices" is in play.
Click to expand...

1864
 
#235
#235
mrorange211 said:
So Wilson's aid in blockading the northern coast of Germany in 1915, which by 1918 had killed over 250,000 Germans also makes him a tyrant, yes?

And don't throw around the Geneva Convention because we all know when push comes to shove, no nation gives a $hit.
Click to expand...

Wilson was our worst president, IMO.
 
#237
#237
Pepe_Silvia said:
1864
Click to expand...

What about the treatment of sick/wounded military is even remotely about civilians? I edited my comment to clarify (and you quoted the edited content).

And if you're taking the 1864 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field... do you really want to? Because the Confederates were responsible for Andersonville.

But the Confederates aren't really a shining beacon of human rights.
 
#239
#239
agent|orange said:
He did this in the name of dismantling a great evil of mankind.

Southern states advocated the denial of food, medicine and all basic human rights adopted in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.

This is a couple of shades short of saying "British and Americans bombed German cities in WW2. Who cares what the Nazis were doing, lets focus in on relatively minute issues in waging a war against an evil institution."

Oh, wait. Actually you're taking a classical liberal stance regarding history. Congrats, you're a liberal.
Click to expand...

You're comparing Confederates to Nazis?

First of all, the Confederates didn't even wage a war of aggression.
 
#240
#240
n_huffhines said:
Wilson was our worst president, IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I disagree, but he wasn't a tyrant for those actions involving the blockade. He was doing what needed to be done to ensure victory for the US troops; the job every president is sworn to do, including Lincoln.
 
#241
#241
n_huffhines said:
Do you actually care if it's technically legal, or if it's right or wrong?
Click to expand...

You were the one saying Lincoln violated the GC. If the first version did not come around until 1864 and the US did not ratify it until 1882, I'd say YOUR argument is based on a failed premise. Do you even know what was in that first version? And what within it Lincoln "violated"? Technicality or not, first question is how something we were not even a part of, even well into the war when it was produced, violated? And second question is what exactly was violated? I remind you it was YOU who brought it up. I am merely asking details to your claim. You said denial of food and medicine as well. Hard to believe such a massive agricultural section of the nation had no access to food. Hard to believe there was no means for medicine or medical care in the region as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#242
#242
agent|orange said:
What about the treatment of sick/wounded military is even remotely about civilians? I edited my comment to clarify (and you quoted the edited content).

And if you're taking the 1864 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field... do you really want to? Because the Confederates were responsible for Andersonville.

But the Confederates aren't really a shining beacon of human rights.
Click to expand...

Conditions in northern prisons were just as bad. Perhaps we should talk about which side was in a better position to ensure that the POWs in their camps were provided with what they needed to survive. The Confederacy wasn't even able to properly clothe and feed its own soldiers.
 
#243
#243
CSpindizzy said:
You were the one saying Lincoln violated the GC. If the first version did not come around until 1864 and the US did not ratify it until 1882, I'd say YOUR argument is based on a failed premise. Do you even know what was in that first version? And what within it Lincoln "violated"? Technicality or not, first question is how something we were not even a part of, even well into the war when it was produced, violated? And second question is what exactly was violated? I remind you it was YOU who brought it up. I am merely asking details to your claim. You said denial of food and medicine as well. Hard to believe such a massive agricultural section of the nation had no access to food. Hard to believe there was no means for medicine or medical care in the region as well.
Click to expand...

You're a waste of time.
 
#244
#244
n_huffhines said:
You're comparing Confederates to Nazis?

First of all, the Confederates didn't even wage a war of aggression.
Click to expand...

Both were intrinsically racist and preached all manners of racial and ethnic purity.

Both practiced, in full, slave labor.

Both reviled any instances of basic human rights.

Both wore grey uniforms.

Both had huge volumes of people that fought and died to protect the interests of a small elite that were not fighting and dying to protect said interests. In fact, slavery was against the interests of most fighting and dying as it deprived them of fair practice access to agricultural jobs. People are still brainwashed even with full access to information today, I can only imagine how easy it was to manipulate an ignorant populace back then.

The common Confederate soldier was not a slave-owner. In fact, most people in the Confederacy were not slave-owners and were misguided to fight and die for an institution they shared no part in. Same with the average German in Nazi Germany.

However, both entities were founded upon vile and evil principles.

I'm sure it probably makes you uncomfortable to be called a Nazi but the talking points of many white supremacy groups share fundamentals with either:

- Late 1800s White Supremacy Groups
- Nazis

I'll leave you to ponder the "why" behind that. And I should also say it wouldn't surprise me if there were some HH/88ers in here geoturfing. Some of y'alls comments are pretty scary in how close to propaganda from that court.

And also the Confederates stated the war "to save their institution". Same with the Germans. Mind you, they invaded Poland to "free ethnic Germans". It was the UK/France's fault they had a defense treaty with Poland. Also, USSR started that war with their own aggression.

Germany also didn't state the oppressive terms of the Versailles Treaty, remember. WW2 is on the French and British shoulders.

So using your "they started a war... but they didn't" thinking you also just defended Nazi Germany. Again.

I can keep going, if you want.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#246
#246
The north practiced slavery still too, so comparing the Union to WWII America and the south to Nazis is absurd.
 
#247
#247
CSpindizzy said:
Typical. Hold you to your own words and this is your response. That's fine if you cannot even defend your own claim.
Click to expand...

You're not making good points. You're detracting from the real issues. You want to talk about technicalities in statements that have been made, when the point is a good president doesn't deny people food and medicine. You can't argue that, so you question how much impact it actually had, and point out that it wasn't really illegal. Who ****ing cares? If it's wrong, and he did it, that's the point.

I can defend my positions perfectly fine. Orange makes much more constructive opposing points than you, and I'll continue to debate with him. You're a waste of time.
 
#249
#249
n_huffhines said:
The north practiced slavery still too, so comparing the Union to WWII America and the south to Nazis is absurd.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to make a point about debt bondage or are you going to transition to a "the North treated Irish/Polish/Chinese immigrants poorly in textile mills, construction, railroads, etc even in the late 1800s" point?

There are plenty of facets through history to point out wrongs of pretty much any nation. The point is... slavery as a "I bought you. I own you. You are mine to do with what I will" institution was evil and archaic.

There isn't a right or wrong. There is just a matter of wrong and less wrong. The North was quite clearly the lesser of the 2 evils here.

I doubt very much you'd argue for the institutionalized trade of humans as property in which Africans came here and bought you and your family for a nominal fee from some Mad Max stylized vegabond gang. Then you get to spend the next decades watching your children grow up and suffer in chains.

You would absolutely not be saying "you know, the Muslims can defend their practice through salient points in their holy texts. Slavery isn't all that bad. Besides, the US has debt bondage so it's not dissimilar."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top