Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-21-2005, 11:10 AM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Civil War arguments

Why wait until secession then?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-21-2005, 11:12 AM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]
Why wait until secession then?

[/ QUOTE ]

And why did the Emancipation Proclaimation only apply to the areas of the South that were still in rebellion?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-21-2005, 11:44 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why wait until secession then?

[/ QUOTE ]

And why did the Emancipation Proclaimation only apply to the areas of the South that were still in rebellion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lincoln knew he wasn't going to be able to walk into the White House and declare slavery illegal. There had been talk of secession for years and it became more serious and impending with every new day up to the election. I understand that as and out and out ACer that you probably don't give much respect to politicians trying to sway from impolitic decisions and trying to balance sometimes contradictory actions, words, and ideas because you think their power is illigitimate in the first place. But for politicians, some of which actually have benevolent ideals and wish well for the country, it's a way of life. If Lincoln had determined for himself that one day slavery would be outlawed, he wouldn't come out guns blazing and free every slave, especially right after states began to secede. Doing so would basically make it impossible to end the war without a bloody, drawn out battle and military surrender. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political as well as military decision, which of course furthered his own goal (in my opinion) of freeing slaves.

But Civil War was one of 2 Bs I got in college. So maybe I'm missing something.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-21-2005, 01:01 PM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]
...you probably don't give much respect to politicians trying to sway from impolitic decisions and trying to balance sometimes contradictory actions, words, and ideas because you think their power is illigitimate in the first place. But for politicians, some of which actually have benevolent ideals and wish well for the country, it's a way of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they lie so that they can accomplish good? If their secret agenda is so great, why do they have to lie about it?

[ QUOTE ]
If Lincoln had determined for himself that one day slavery would be outlawed, he wouldn't come out guns blazing and free every slave, especially right after states began to secede. Doing so would basically make it impossible to end the war without a bloody, drawn out battle and military surrender.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Isn't that exactly what happened? Or is 600,000 dead not "bloody" in your opinion?

[ QUOTE ]
The Emancipation Proclamation was a political as well as military decision, which of course furthered his own goal (in my opinion) of freeing slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got the first part right. The political goal was to gain foreign support for the union (which succeeded), and therefore to end any possibility of foreign assistance to the confederacy.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-22-2005, 11:23 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]
So they lie so that they can accomplish good? If their secret agenda is so great, why do they have to lie about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not always lies. Many times it is. Sometimes it's standard political equivocation. And, obviously, it wouldn't be wise to come out and say he'd free the slaves. I don't know whether or not you're insinuating that freeing the slaves might not be a good cause, but it's something the south definitely didn't want. I don't really want to argue about the honesty and ethics in politics as that's just a red herring. In this specific instance, I'm willing to give Lincoln the benefit of the doubt, because of all I've read about him, that he genuinely wanted slavery ended, and it would've been a [censored] move to come out and say it. Mincing words with the south was a more politic way of handling the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Lincoln had determined for himself that one day slavery would be outlawed, he wouldn't come out guns blazing and free every slave, especially right after states began to secede. Doing so would basically make it impossible to end the war without a bloody, drawn out battle and military surrender.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Isn't that exactly what happened? Or is 600,000 dead not "bloody" in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on now. If you really need me to spell it out I will, but I know you're smart enough to figure out what I'm implying. He didn't want a long battle, so he didn't free the slaves right away. Once he saw that the battle couldn't be ended diplomatically he pulled out all the stops.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Emancipation Proclamation was a political as well as military decision, which of course furthered his own goal (in my opinion) of freeing slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got the first part right. The political goal was to gain foreign support for the union (which succeeded), and therefore to end any possibility of foreign assistance to the confederacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was one reason. I'm not going to argue that Lincoln handled the slave situation the best way he could, and in the end it looked a little self-serving for the Union. But you can't really deny the guy had a place in his heart for freeing slaves.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-21-2005, 12:26 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]
Why wait until secession then?

[/ QUOTE ]

A large part of the reason the South seceded when it did was that the North was blocking expasnion of slavery into new western states which would tip the balance of power in congress where anti-slavery states would have the votes to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-23-2005, 12:18 AM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why wait until secession then?

[/ QUOTE ]

A large part of the reason the South seceded when it did was that the North was blocking expasnion of slavery into new western states which would tip the balance of power in congress where anti-slavery states would have the votes to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've thought about this response, and the others in the same vein, those giving convoluted explanations trying to justify union aggression, for a long time.

What you're telling me is that you're defending a system that, in order to outlaw slavery, needed half of the participants to withdraw from the system, then have the other half invade and conquer the secessionists, using conscripted soldiers, and killing 600,000 in the process.

Man, what a system. Where do I sign up?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.