Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "The American Civil War - OverSimplified (Part 1)" video.

How is this is relevant? How is he a democrat?
6
Not really, in spite of John Brown's good intentions, he was basically triggering a regional civil war in the process. And arguably added to the issues that led to the American Civil War. Freeing the slaves is one thing, getting them to deliberately try to target plantation owners at that point is not freedom but petty revenge.
3
@onwardtowaffles Not really since all John Brown would of done is plunge the entire south into chaos which would of led to a terrible amounts of deaths, many of which innocent
3
The color code for Dems and Republicans did not occur till 1996. He is only referring to ally vs enemy collar grading. Blue is usually associated with the protagonist force while red is usually associated with the antagonist force
3
@WeaslyTwin “Oh, so you just don't know what the definition of a liberal is. Got it.” - Liberalism Definition: Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom. Lincoln was not a free market advocate as he favor heavy protectionist policies. Lincoln did advocate degrees of civil liberties but that was only in promotion of specific agendas. Those liberties certainly did not count for much when he suspended the protections of citizens to promote anti war media, and conscripted northern citizens into the army who were against changing the nature of the war about slavery. “The basic of idea of liberalism is that individual liberty is best achieved through equality before the law. That pretty much requires a high degree of government power and oversight.” - According to who? Liberties can’t exactly be promoted if it is being highly circumvented by the central government at its convenience. Not to mention the basic fundamental of liberalism at least in the classic sense was to limit government power as much as humanly possible. That certainly would not align with Lincoln’s use of executive power to force his way. “If you don't what the 'social contract' is then you don't know what liberalism.” - I never said I didn’t know what the social contract was. But it is not a direct excuse to just get away with anything. And it still does not change the nature of government limitations. Lincoln did not limit central government power, he expanded it. Now to be fair, I am not necessarily saying he was in the wrong for this. But I think it is important not to frame his actions as something it wasn’t. “And racist or not, which he wasn't.” - Wanting to deport African Americans back to Africa to set up as an American colony would certainly say otherwise. And Lincoln has stated many times that the administrative jobs of the United States still belong to be operated by the white man. Now to be fair, some of this can be taken with a grain of salt given it was during some of his campaigns. But I don’t think it would be honest to slap all of it out of hand as a lie either. “He still most certainly believed in equality before the law.” - I mean sort of, as mentioned Lincoln did want people held to the same standard but it was still held in a concept of a central authority and while in principle he may had wanted to lead the US gradually into a more equal direction, he was not as unconditional about it as people try to give him credit for. And we have to account for a slippery slope logic, are we to say that not being a racist automatically makes one a liberal? That would certainly broaden the rather specific criterias. “John Locke, you know the Father of Liberalism, was pretty sexist. Still a liberal.” - I mean, perhaps in theory but not in action. You do make a point about Locke considering even the “Father of Liberalism” was pretty hypocritical of what he preached and wrote. I don’t believe that words or actions alone determine someone’s ideological stance. It is a bit of both. “And please list specific examples of individual freedoms he suppressed to achieve his war gains.” - I mean forced conscription, suspending the rights to publishing anti war press, the arrest of said people who made such press without a trial, there’s plenty. Now as I mentioned, I am not even saying this is abnormal as it was pretty typical for a wartime President to enact these policies. But I think it would be difficult to say you value individual liberties for self determination, when everything in your administration has proven the contrary. "Lincoln was a progressive constitutionalist and believed that the continuation of Slavery was contradictory to the promise of the US constitution." And none of that is contradictory to liberalist beliefs.” - But it does not automatically make it that either like you are essentially trying to claim. Being anti slavery does not automatically make one a liberal, they are two separate issues. Especially since the opposition of slavery had more reasons than just “The Black man is equal.” In fact many anti slaveries did not believe that at all and still promoted that the White man was superior. Many northerners opposed slavery because of its cruelty, the political divide it was causing, or the fact that it was viewed as an economically outdated policy. Now I am not saying that Lincoln automatically had those same stances. But the evidence makes clear that it wasn’t as Black and White of Lincoln viewed the Blacks the same. He didn’t, at least not for most of his life and most of the war. There is a possibility that Lincoln may have had a sincere change of heart by the war’s end, and hell much of the evidence even points to that. Sadly we won’t know for certain since his life was taken not long after. If Lincoln was a liberal, he was sure as hell a hypocritical one, and from my pov never proritized that stances over his nationalism, anti slavery stance, and moving the concept of American nationhood closer to what he felt it needed to be for the nation to live, and he showed he was willing to weaponize the government, economy, and politics in whatever direction to get what he wanted. And I am not saying all of it was bad mind you. The truth was he was right about most of his points. But the thing was history showed what his priorities were in the concept of America. If he was liberal at all, which I don’t conclude he was. He was a nationalist and constitutionalist first and a liberal second.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 He wasn’t a northern liberal. Quit projecting misinformation good sir.
2
13th Amendment.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 wrong about everything? Says the one who couldn’t even counter the points in the last thread. Mr. “Lincoln is a liberal, because I think I know his stance better than him himself.” Despite the fact that Lincoln based all of his actions based on his anti slavery rhetoric, was in favor of government centralization, implemented tariffs, suppressed media outlets, and even stated the Republicans were still fundamentally conservative.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 your concept of liberalism is laughable. The Revolutionary war I’ll give if you view it in a classical sense. But it’s clear that you’re not since you’re trying to paint liberal and conservative as opposites, showing you are clearly promoting a left wing bias. However truth be told liberal and conservative concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. Lincoln wasn’t a liberal, at least not in practice. So the Civil War does not even concern liberalism since both sides viewed the conflict as one for liberty. Rather it was two competing concepts of American nationhood. WW1 - you are aware that it was old fashioned Empires against other old fashioned empires. Don’t see how you can call that a liberal win. Especially considering the ideologies that followed. WW2: Somewhat true but only on the western front. Eastern Europe did not receive any kind of win like that.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 Lincoln was not a Northern Liberal bud. A progressive sure, but his institutions were still founded preserving the constitution in its basic form
1
@Crispr_CAS9 did I say liberal means disliking the constitution? No. Secondly, Lincoln wasn’t an advocate of equal rights. He was an anti slavery but his stance still had racist rhetoric. Secondly define individual rights. Because the south clearly had a very different definition of individual rights. As for your point on conservatism, sure. But arguably the institution of the constitution is a traditional document considering how long it lasted. And here’s the thing, liberal and conservative were not mutually exclusive concepts. Especially when the individual liberties was the very thing trying to be conserved. Yes there were conservative liberals just as there were progressive Republicans. But as mentioned, Lincoln wasn’t a liberal. He was willing to make use of high government power to promote the social change he believed was needed which was the institution of slavery being prevented from being expanded. In that sense he was rather authoritarian in his rhetoric.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 I stated that Lincoln still had status quoes he believed in. And was still a racist himself, in fact you are aware the reason Lincoln initially wanted slaves free was so they could be shipped back to Africa by force, hardly the beliefs of a liberal. He believed that the Black population would never be able to co exist with the white one peacefully and basically believed that segregation of the populations was the best way to move forward. Now yes some of these sentiments did change but his stance here is not that of a individual rights.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "Advocating towards equality in an environment of outright racism is the most that can be expected from a politician that needs the votes of racists to win. And Lincoln absolutely did advocate towards equality." - No he wasn't. Lincoln's sentiment throughout most of his career was that the administrative leadership of society fell under the white man. Lincoln still believed whites to be superior as a whole, the difference was he had more pity towards the blacks than oppression or hate. Hence why he wanted to do as mentioned above. Now yes, it can be argued he had a change of heart later on. But his beliefs was not rooted on some egalitarian desire. It was rooted in sympathy. "The Constitution had been in effect for ~72 years at the start of the war. Slavery had been around a bit longer. Guess which institution the conservatives of the day were more interested in maintaining?" - Time is hardly a factor in to this. Slavery was around longer but in the context of what Lincoln was hoping to preserve, his conservatism was rooted in defending and keeping the USA together and the constitution upheld. Being conservative on one issue does not make it the same as all. The south was willing to do what was convenient for their economic advantage, hence why their political positions kept flip flopping during the 19th century. "They're still not. Although it does require threading a philosophical needle. Not relevant to this conversation though, since neither the Republicans nor the Democrats of the time were liberal conservatives." - By what definition? The south believed they were just that, that is was conserving a liberty to own slaves free from government interference. You have to remember liberalism back then does not mean the same thing it means today. "The fact that you put 'Republican' across from 'liberal' in that sentence indicates a problem with your thinking. Do you need me to tell you what it is?" - I am using a general example, to be better specific, progressive authoritarians would be a better use. I'll admit my word choice was off, but I am using examples to make the point. "individual liberties, equality, and progress. Which is what liberalism is about." - No it isn't. Classic liberalism which was the used term back then meant advocating for more free markets, more individual liberties under the rule of law, and less government interference. As far as the plantation owner was concerned, their liberty was to own slaves. I am not saying it is agreeable, but to act as if Lincoln in any form was a liberal would be to ignore the racist rhetoric he himself had, the standing institutions he was trying to preserve, and the amount of times he was willing to use the government to achieve his goals even at the cost of individual liberties. Also no, progress =/= liberalism. Nice try. "You're having enough difficulty understanding the words were already using, I don't have the time to explain why Lincoln wasn't an authoritarian. Also, authoritarianism is not contrary to either conservatism or liberalism, so that's not even relevant." - Authoritarian is the opposite of liberalism bud, especially in the classical sense. You can't exactly be promoting individual liberties if the government is constantly circle venting that. Like it or not, Lincoln was not a liberal. He was anti slavery, progressive, constitutionalist, nationalist. The Civil War was primarily a pro vs anti slavery rhetoric, to the south it didn't matter if they had to use "progression" or "conservatism" to achieve that end. By the same token, Lincoln was willing to end slavery due to its existence violating the promise the constitution made. The fact you don't understand shows that your motive is to try to equate the modern left to Lincoln and the modern right to the Confederates, something that is not only intellectually dishonest, but considering how many times the Dems have been willing to flip flop their positions to maintain control, is frankly laughable.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "Which is irrelevant." - Not really. You can't call him a leftist liberal when his motive was still correlated with racism, using government powers to subvery individual liberties, and maintain a status quo in every form except slavery. "And was still a racist" Also irrelevant." - You can't be an egalitarian and still be a racist. "Of a modern liberal, no. Of a liberal of that time? Yes." - Liberal at the time was classical liberal that literally believed in as little government interference as possible and as much of a free market as possible. Neither of which he exercised, So no, he was not a liberal by those standards either. "There is no possible way you can frame any belief of Lincoln's wherein he is less supportive of individual rights than the side PROMOTING SLAVERY. Get it?" - I never said he did so less than the slavers. I am not a pro confederate and they have more than enough of their own baggage just through the institution of slavery alone. I am explaining Lincoln's position in it of itself. And no, he was more than willing to subvert individual rights if it meant achieving his anti slavery goals. Don't believe me? Look up the forced conscriptions he made after the Proclamation. Many Northerners did not want to turn the war into a slavery issue and did not want to fight for that reason, don't forget there were still many pro slavery northerners or those who did not want it to turn into that. Lincoln held little care for their views and were even willing to make arrests of anti war protestors without a right to trial. Bud, these are not the actions of a classic liberal.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "If you don't think Lincoln advocated toward equality, you're too clueless of history to be worth any more of my time." - Blind insults will get you nowhere. It is quite common knowledge of his statements and viewed that he did not through his pre war and most of his war time did not view Blacks as equal. And are you denying the forced shipment back to Africa he had believed in? Like I said before, it is possible and perhaps even likely he had a genuine change of heart during the war. Who is to say? But you are failing to understand that the moral grounds of opposing slavery did not automatically equal being anti racist. And most of the major politicians that existed at the time were in some form racist. So I am not even saying to demonize Lincoln, as it is understandable why he would have these views at the time. Grant was Anti Semitic, Sherman was anti Native, etc. Like that was just the standard that existed at the time. And Lincoln did help move things a step forward with the removal of slavery. But it is key to understand his actual positions for doing so, because I believe it is dishonest for both the left and right to try to weaponize Lincoln for their political use, the same way it is just as dishonest to weaponize the Confederates to demonize either side.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "Blind insults will get you nowhere" It's a statement of fact." - No, it really ain't. "knowledge of his statements " political statements are irrelevant. Only political action matters." - Going to apply that same logic to the CSA or the politicians of today? "You keep pointing to what he said to racists, I keep pointing to what he ACTUALLY DID. That's why everything you say is irrelevant." - Once again, it isn't. He freed the slaves, that is it. He didn't give them equal rights, that did not happen till after his death.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 the north weren’t liberals bud. Nice try.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 Lincoln had his assistant write to Karl Marx. Also this isn't really relevant to the context of liberalism. Since we have seen first hand Communism was not liberal in any sense of the word, considering most of their regimes in practice had resulted in complete totalitarian controlled governments with extremely repressive policies.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 Now I will be fair, this was before the regimes were placed into practice and Marx was becoming a bit of an icon in Europe. But I doubt communications are the same as endorsements, especially if Lincoln had the benefit of knowing what Marxism actually was in practice.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "Lincoln didn't endorse Marx, but Marx did endorse Lincoln. I don't believe Marx was known to be fond of any conservatives." - By what standard? That is the point. The standard of conservative in one nation is not the same as another. And I am not claiming Lincoln was a conservative either. At least not beyond his desire to preserve the US constitution in its entirely. But just like there are Liberal Conservatives or Conservative Liberals. There are people that fall under neither. Such as Lincoln.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "He had his assistant translate. "Communism was not liberal" Communist countries are illiberal, communism as put forward by Marx is a leftist system. Lincolns letters to Marx suggest a traditional liberal view of formal communism, call it 'polite academic disagreement'." - Ok which still stands that Lincoln disagreed with Marx. Being respectful as an opposition does not mean they were on similar grounds. Many friends and family can disagree with just about everything, but I doubt that would make you see them as any less as people.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 “By any standard under general acceptance, either now or at the time.” - Not really, again Lincoln would not match a classic liberal by any metric. And I am not listing the reasons a third time only for you to ignore them. “No, the policies of conservatives is different in different countries, because the dominant traditions they're prioritizing are different. Conservatism, the unifying core ideology, is the same.” - No it isn’t. Because the basis of saying conservatism in a broad term is trying to preserve traditions, cultures, or political status quoes is to ignore that those are fundamentally different depending both on the nation one exists within and what time frame that nation is in. Which is why conservative ideologies can and often have clashed. Given that what is trying to be preserved is entirely different. "At least not beyond his desire to preserve the US constitution in its entirely" “He had no such desire. He in fact wanted to amend the Constitution in various ways. And, you know, did. He wanted to preserve the Union. Not the same thing.” - Lincoln himself would say otherwise. “But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.” Lincoln’s desire for amendments were purely to achieve his anti slavery aims which as mentioned, he opposed because he believed its continue existence was not only a standing violation of the constitution’s base promise. But also because he knew that it was creating a political divide so fierce that it would eventually tear the nation apart. Something he was right about. "Such as Lincoln." Except he meets the definition of liberal you provided, so is a liberal by both my definition and yours.” - Once again no he didn’t, and you have not so much as addressed any of the counter I presented that have disproven the notion or at the very least present themselves as contrary to your claim good sir. You continuous dismiss the evidence I have provided that has proven counter to such notion, both through his words and actions.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "And his disagreements were that which a liberal has with a leftist. His objections were LIBERAL objections." - Such as and under what basis? Also as mentioned, it does not require to be a liberal to hold the same critiques as one when describing a rather extreme ideology that Marxist socialism was.
1
And risk more people being alienated and aligning with the CSA? Not a great plan.
1
@WeaslyTwin not really no. The basis has only been that the Republicans have mostly worked to preserve the powers of the constitution while the Dems constantly work to change or dismantle it
1
@WeaslyTwin if we went by the logic that any amendment to the constitution is automatically considered liberal. You would have to call literally everything in the US liberal and the very definition would loose it’s meaning. Also promoting change isn’t what liberal means. By definition
1
@WeaslyTwin and I’m explaining Lincoln wasn’t a liberal. In any sense of the word. A. He was perfectly ok with a high degree of government power and oversight. B. He was still a racist in spite of being Anti Slavery. C. He was more than willing to suppress individual freedoms in favor of his war aims. Lincoln was a progressive constitutionalist and believed that the continuation of Slavery was contradictory to the promise of the US constitution.
1
It didn’t completely switch. Bud conservatism is subject to change based on the stage of society. What is trying to be conserved now is not the same as what was a 100 years ago. Think about it this way, you want to change the country to get closer to the image you have for it. Once when you get to that image, why would you want to keep changing it, thus getting farther from the vision? The short answer is you wouldn’t. At least not in the realm of politics where being right has taken supreme
1
@ken3243 yep. Because they didn’t switch. The democrats changed their values back then compared to now in many areas. The Republicans evolved over time, as simply the problems of the 19th century ain’t gonna be the same as the 21st.
1
@ken3243 did you pay attention to nothing I just said? No they didn’t
1
@ken3243 I literally just explained they didn't. What are you blind?
1
@Crispr_CAS9 nope
1
No it didn’t bud. Evolution in topic issues does not change political platforms
1
@peaveyst7 not an argument. It never flipped. People just fail to grasp the political debates and oppositions that make today aren’t the same as 2 centuries ago.
1
@ken3243 no they really weren’t
1
@ken3243 that’s not an argument
1
@ken3243 the parties didn’t switch bud. But here I will indulge you for the sake of argument, how exactly did they switch in ur eyes?
1
@ken3243 and the south aren’t the same now as they were back then, just as the north are different. What kind of logic is that? So you’re basing the entire idea of a party switch on geographic? Bud that is so ridiculous it isn’t even funny
1
@Crispr_CAS9 and here comes the lie provocateur himself. Still trying to equate the Southern Democrats to modern Republicans.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 Objectively false. So you're denying that he centralized government power, exercised the use of tariffs, arrested people who made anti war media, and where he literally stated in quote that the Republican party was fundamentally conservative. So I guess he never said, “But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.” Or this, "The chief and real purpose of the Republican Party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change ... than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to."
1
@Crispr_CAS9 once again not quite. Firstly preventing the capacity to engage in trade with even foreign commerce flies in the face of a free market. Outside influences or not. Also that’s kinda ironic considering even the modern Republicans are in favor of tariffs while the modern liberals oppose it. As for a centralized government, a form liberalism would be advocating less centralized power since central power can prevent agency within a regional society. Again flies in the face of liberalism concepts. And ur proving my point of ur false equivalence. Being anti slavery is not equal to being a liberal. 🤦‍♂️
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "Firstly preventing the capacity to engage in trade with even foreign " “Tariffs don't prevent foreign trade.” - They create limits for it as protective tariffs basically penalize people that buy certain products in a foreign market “Free markets are understood to be markets that are free of undue influence.” - Who decides what is or isn’t undue? “If foreign governments are interfering with local markets, then free market principles require local government correction.” - Some would disagree hence why plenty of free market advocates are opposed to tariffs. “You just used Republican as an antonym of liberal, which someone even vaguely honest would be ashamed to have done.” - You literally did the same thing in another thread. I will give you I was wrong in my word choice there, but don’t be going high and mighty when you literally did the same comparison. “There are modern members of both parties and both ideologies that support tariffs, and members from both that oppose them. This is sensible, since tariffs are neither required nor prohibited by either system.” - Ok so by your own admission, Lincoln could still be a conservative and support tariffs. Correct? “Some forms of liberalism, perhaps. Not all. Certainly not liberalism as it existed in the Americas at the time.” - Literally liberalism in its most basic form advocates limited government. “Of course the two things aren't equal. I've never said they were 'equal'. Plenty of left-orientated ideologies are anti-slavery. Anarcho-communists are anti-slavery, but they aren't liberals. But liberals are inherently anti-slavery. And Lincoln was a liberal.” - Funny how you only mention left wing ideas rather than those on both sides, almost as if you have a certain agenda you are trying to promote. And according to who? As mentioned, classical liberals would take the stance that even if a stance was taken morally, that does not mean they would want the government to interfere. And as mentioned, Lincoln could still just as easily be an Anti Slavery conservative. Now contrary to what you may think, I don’t think Lincoln was exclusively a conservative either. He was a moderate constitutionalist who wanted to ensure that America lived up to its original promise highlighted in the constitution. If Lincoln was a Liberal in any way of the word, he was a conservative and moderate one. And his statements clearly stated where his stances were. The issue you are not getting is just like you claim there is more than one breed of liberalism, there can just as easily be more than one breed of conservative. The key divide within the North was between the Anti Slavery and Abolitionists. Which should be clear to explain that at the time, there was a key difference between Anti Slavery and a full abolitionist. People who were Anti Slavery, were against the practice of slavery, but they believed that the focus should be to contain it and let it get phased out on its own, even willing to provide fininaital compensation. People who were Abolitionists on the otherhand, wanted slavery gone immediately and that the more gradually phasing the anti slavery members were advocating was not good enough for them. Lincoln was an Anti Slavery member, not an abolitionist. At least not before the war. The South had similar divides both before and during the secession except for them it leaned more between the moderates and extreme pro slavery. This is the point, you are trying to paint it as a typical black and white idea of liberalism vs conservatism when the reality was both sides had elements of both. Especially since as mentioned, the concepts were not mutually exclusive at the time. Lincoln in the best since was socially liberal and politically conservative. In summary, he was a moderate. So the thing I will give you upon further research is you’re not entirely wrong. But I would argue that while your points do hold some merits, I think you are trying to rule out the idea that was also conservative in just as many fronts. I don’t know if that is out of ignorance or for the sake of an agenda. Only you can answer that one. Another factor I think you are ignoring when describing the north as a whole is much of the north disagreed with Lincoln. Lincoln was not necessarily the most popular president even among the northern states, as many believed that despite his moderate views on most fronts, he was too aggressive against slavery (Kinda ironic considering his stances weren’t far off from most anti slavery members, but my point stands) and in a sense caused the Civil War. He even came close to losing the 1864 election if it wasn’t for the victory Sherman amounted for him. The North had many internal divides, just like the south also did. For better or worse, the reality is aside from one side being pro slavery and the other anti slavery. No other stances were a black and white issue. For either Lincoln, or the north as a whole.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 “Nope. They only disincentivize it. That's not a limit.” - Except it is, artificially taxing more on the grounds of protectionist policies is a limit. It may be a small limit, but a limit nonetheless. “And if it's to counter undue influence, it isn't a violation of free markets but a protection of them. This is just me repeating what I've already said. I'm not repeating it again, stop being wrong.” - As mentioned it isn’t wrong. It is a matter of perspective. As mentioned many liberals themselves have disagreed with Tariffs for this very reason. “That's shockingly irrelevant. If you believe the influence is undue, you act against the undue influence. You might be wrong, but that's entirely irrelevant to the conversation.” - If you give the government an overreaching power to combat undue influence, there would be concern if they themselves become an undue influence. “I'm sure 'some' would. The existence of an anti-tariff liberal position doesn't invalidate the existence of a pro-tariff liberal position.” - Nor would it invalidate a Pro Tariff Conservative one. “I'm fairly careful with my language. Just to be sure, I went back through the threads we've talked in. And while I did find another instance of YOU doing that, I can't find any examples where I did it. Perhaps you could quote it?” - I did not find the original comment due to Youtube’s deletion issues, but I did find your response to my criticism of when you did. I say, “since you’re trying to paint liberal and conservatives as opposites.” You respond with, “They’re not opposites per se, but most liberal ideologies are opposed to most results of most conservative ideologies, and vice versa. So while you ‘can’ have conservative liberals or liberal conservatives, it is rare.” So two points to cover with that. Firstly, you did strongly imply them to basically be opposite stances. Secondly, by your own admission in this response, something I agreed with Liberal Conservatives or Conservative Liberals wasn't impossible. So who is to say Lincoln couldn’t have been both as my earlier comment suggested? “If the only information we had about him was his position on tariffs, sure. You realize that the statement 'Lincoln wasn't a liberal because he supported tariffs' is wrong if liberals can support tariffs, regardless of whether or not conservatives can also support them, right? It's not probative here.” - I will retract that statement. But I would also argue, as mentioned, that along with most of his other stances did not rule him out from being a conservative either. “Limited government is not equivalent to decentralization. A limited federal government is more liberal than a series of authoritarian decentralized governments. So centralization of power is not probative either.” - Slavery alone would not make them authoritarian, as least not by the south’s pov at the time. “It is true that you previously wrongly said that classical liberals would support slavery. I don't know why repeating this hilariously absurd bit of claptrap would be a good idea.” - Alright, I will be fair here. I did confuse the statuses of classical liberals to libertarians. And I feel like many of my misconceptions were rooted into that. [Skipping some stuff I broadly agree with...] “No, Lincoln was an abolitionist. He literally abolished slavery.” - Post war, and that was only because there was a political climate to do so. However it was not an action that would have been done if the war had not occured. “Political actions are more important than political statements.” - In some cases true, but that point is made mute if you don’t consider the contrast in circumstances before the war vs after the war. And the fact that Lincoln, along with many other northerners did have their hearts harden as a result from the war. “Also, we have plenty of private correspondence where he indicates abolitionist preferences, and only public statements of containment.” - The thing is many anti slavery had abolitionist preferances, the thing was there is a difference between a desired preference and what lengths they were willing to go politically to achieve said goal. Abolitionists and Anti Slavery members had the same end, the same destination. They just differed in the method they were desiring to go in. Lincoln was an Anti Slavery through his stances. He was not willing to rip the country in half over the issue, he was willing to provide the south concessions as a condition for gradual emancipation, and even stated he would not abolish slavery if it meant doing so would tear up the union. “If he was publicly abolitionist before the war, he never would have been elected. Again, political statements are irrelevant.” - Except they aren’t, especially when again nothing at the time contradicted those statements. Now, if you are willing to provide quotes of Lincoln’s private statements, I will gladly read them out. And the thing is yes, an abolitionist would not had gotten elected, many of them got a bad name from failed slave revolts driven by abolishinists. Hence why Lincoln knew he could not be an abolitionist if he hoped for slavery to one day go without causing a civil war. Of course once when that war did happen, that political concern did not really matter anymore especially once the Union started winning. “ I agree that both the North and the South had both liberals and conservatives. I've never said otherwise. I have said that the North was predominantly governed by liberals, and the South predominantly by conservatives.” - As mentioned, I don’t agree that the north was predominantly liberals. Especially when as we covered earlier, the concepts weren’t mutually exclusive from one another. And if we are talking about it in the context of slavery, there were a lot more Anti Slavery members than abolishinits at least before the war. “Both had local opposition. I would even grant that there were anti-slavery elements in both conservative and liberal camps, although they reached the position from divergent reasoning.” - True. “Here I stress that I'm agreeing with your distinction between anti-slavery and abolitionist, because abolitionism is an inherently anti-conservative movement.” - The thing is I don’t agree with that though. Being an abolitionist did not automatically contradict conservative values. Now if it was to the lengths of starting a slave revolt, then sure. But the idea of getting rid of slavery was not contradictory to the aspect northern conservatives cared about, which was the constitution. Of course I will grant you that most northern conservatives did not take abolitionist stances. Many reasons for that, but the main one was they did not want to rock the boat too much and risk what occurred in the American Civil War. Lincoln in that sense was similar, though I will agree he was more hardcore in the anti slavery position than much of his peers. That position only came to become more radical during the war. The most that could be said is that Lincoln started as an Anti Slavery and became an abolishinist during the war. “Although not, of course, a necessarily liberal one.” - Agreed. “Just as being pro-slavery is an inherently anti-liberal position, but not necessarily a conservative one.” - After the research I conducted I can agree with that. I will grant you, I made the mistake of confusing liberalism with libertarianism. A very fool hardy’s mistake.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "Protectionist policies are a limit." You must not know what the word 'limit' means. You are wrong by definition, no further conversation needed here.” Limit: a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible. - Or possible. When artificial policies are placed to make the purchases harder through either restrictions or charging much more, that would create a limit. So no, I really am not. “The existence of anti-tariff liberals is not an argument against the existence of pro-tariff liberals. You have no argument here, so no further conversation needed here either.” - True, but it does not rule out that someone pro tariff can just as easily be conservative. “Which is why pro-tariff liberals want checks and balances to limit government authority with them. Still support tariffs from a liberal position. Again, you have no argument.” - Ok, and as mentioned, Anti Tariff liberals have argued that allowing the government to impose such tariffs would prevent the government from being limited as it would allow them to control trade on a global level. And ironically pro and anti tariff conservatives have similar debate. “The existence of pro-tariff conservatives is completely irrelevant to whether or not there were pro-tariff liberals.” - Not in this context, since I have argued that Lincoln through most of his stances absolutely could of been conservative as much as liberal. “ You found an instance of me treating liberalism and conservatism as broadly (but not strictly) incompatible. This is not an example of me treating Republicans as incompatible with liberalism, or Democrats as incompatible with conservatism, or any other combination of party and ideology. Which was the thing you did that you said I also did. And just to be sure, I double checked that thread AGAIN, and sure enough, I didn't do what you claim in that thread. Try again.” - Maybe not outright, but the connotation you used strongly implied you thought with that mindset. Until clarifications were put in, I was going to question those aspects. "But I would also argue, as mentioned, that along with most of his other stances did not rule him out from being a conservative either." “I don't think most of anyone's stances could rule them out of any political ideology, because people have thousands of positions on random things, while political ideologies are defined by only a few subjects. The question isn't 'could you rule out conservatism with a random sampling of Lincoln's positions', it's 'Do any of Lincoln's positions rule out conservatism?' Or more accurately here (since liberal and conservative are not 'strictly' exclusive), 'Do any of Lincoln's positions indicate liberalism OR an incompatibility with liberalism?' See how I avoided the need to prove a negative?” - This is something I already addressed in a previous comment. “I don't know what thing I said you think this is a response to, but it certainly isn't the thing you quoted immediately beforehand.” - By calling the southern states “Authoritarian states.” "I did confuse the statuses of classical liberals to libertarians." A mistake as grave as going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.” - Perhaps so. "Post war" Emancipation Proclamation was during the war.” - Only within the rebel states, slavery was not made illegal on a national level until post war. “Yes, Lincoln couldn't act politically on his abolitionist preferences until it was politically possible. So?” - So, it proves as mentioned, both anti slavery and abolitionists had the goal to end slavery, where they differed was political method. Lincoln’s methods prior to the war as Anti Slavery. “It's unlikely that the political environment would have allowed it without the war, so possibly true. Not probative to whether or not he WANTED to abolish slavery.” - Almost Every Anti Slavery wanted it abolished eventually. Again the differences were method and patience. Lincoln’s goal prior to the war within his political stance was to contain slavery in the states it was already in and allow it to be phased out gradually. Lincoln was never going to shoot for an overnight abolishment before the war. "In some cases true" I think that the proposition 'politicians lie' is so close to always true as makes no practical difference.” - Nothing indicated that Lincoln lied. Yes, you can say Lincoln would of done more than what he claimed, but in an alternate scenario where the Civil War never happened, you would of had no way to prove that. The thing is, you cannot just assume every politician to lie, you contrast what they say with actions that would have contradicted it. And Lincoln didn’t contradict it, at least not till 1865, after the war and its effects took place. “I agree that many people became MORE abolitionist because of the war. That's not probative to whether or not Lincoln was abolitionist prior to the war.” - I still argue he wasn’t. People like John Brown were abolitionists, they no care of going through the political process and had no interest in trying to compensate any southerner for the emancipation. Lincoln on the other hand, was willing to act on every stance that the Anti Slavery platform stood on.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 “That's so wrong it literally made me stand up and walk away from my computer for a minute. If you have abolitionist preferences, you are an abolitionist.” - Once again, both Anti Slavery and Abolitionists aimed for slavery to be made illegal, the difference as mentioned was method, legal procedure, and time. “If you opt to push for merely anti-slavery policies because you don't think people would accept abolition, you're a politician.” - An Anti Slavery politician. I’ll explain more when getting down to the quote on this point. “This is only partially true.” - In the context of slavery, it was fully true. Now how blacks were to be treated after had contrasting views, but within the context of slavery itself. Both wanted to have it removed. “In a famous POLITICAL statement.” - Something he acted upon before the war started. Lincoln even stated that he approved of the proposed Corwin Amendment which would of constitutionally protected slavery in the states it was already in. You can’t say Lincoln was an abolitionist when he was more than willing to make this kind of compromise with the south as a last ditch attempt to prevent secession, which would of made slavery in the southern states constitutionally protected, maybe forever from how it was seen at the time. The reason the south did not accept such a deal was because part of their reason for secession was not just preserving slavery but expanding it. “Contemporaneous private correspondence contradicts it.” - Like? “The letter to Horace Greeley is probably the most famous example. "Hence why Lincoln knew he could not be an abolitionist" Why he could not ACT as an abolitionist." - And Lincoln says in that same letter, “If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” - Lincoln even in this letter openly stated that he would not prioritize abolishment over keeping the Union unified and that he disagreed with the idea that the Union should not be saved unless it freed all the slaves. That is even in the context if this letter, an Anti Slavery stance. And this was in 1862, only strengthening my argument that if Lincoln changed his mind, it wouldn’t had been till much later on. “This is essentially the same argument broadly applied, with Lincoln as the narrow case. Whether you agree with my assessment of how to describe the people in power has no bearing whatever on whether or not I said they were unopposed. I didn't. I never said there were no conservatives in the North, or no liberals in the South. That is what you claimed, you were wrong.” - No, but you did state that the overall sides were treated that the north was predominantly liberal. What you basically implied was the opposition was in the minority. “It literally does. The core of conservatism is the maintenance of traditional social hierarchies. Abolishing a traditional social hierarchy is as opposed to conservatism as it is possible to get.” - Not in the context of the North, since as mentioned slavery for the most part, was already gone from the north since the late 1700s to early 1800s. To them, the absence of slavery was the tradition and that the south were using an outdated economic institution since the north already were displaying more practical methods of economy. “Northern Conservatives would want to maintain the existing status quo of the Union, which would equate to an opposition to abolition for reasons you yourself have neatly explained in this thread.” - Again I said most, most conservatives would be opposed to abolitionism. And prior to the war they were for the reasons I mentioned before. But like every issue, there were exceptions, and as the war continued the stance on slavery became more and more radical, even amongst the conservatives. "Started as anti-slavery and became abolitionist by the mid 1850s, maybe.” - Nope, as mentioned all evidence showed that before and during the war he was exercising an Anti Slavery practice and even his own statements made clear he was not willing to go the abolitionist route before and during the earlier years of the war. You can’t try to challenge that on the pretense of “He might be lying because politicians lie.” Without evidence of words or actions that contradicts his statements, that argument is made mute.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 “They're not opposites per se, but most liberal ideologies are opposed to most results of most conservative ideologies, and vice versa.” - Depending on the timeframe. But that is only because given the history of society, authoritarianism was what was being conserved back then. However that has been much different today. “So while you 'can' have conservative liberals or liberal conservatives, it is rare.” - I wouldn’t say that it is automatically rare. It is just their relevance to societies back then was somewhat small and mute. "Lincoln wasn’t a liberal" In our previous communications I've given a definition of liberal that absolutely does apply to Lincoln, can you give a definition that doesn't?” - Liberalism definition: Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom. "since both sides viewed the conflict as one for liberty." One side viewed the wars as for the preservation and expansion of slavery, so I'm going to go ahead and say they weren't concerned with liberty in any meaningful way.” - You are judging that by your standards. But you forget at the time, slavery as fucked up as it was, was consider part of the liberties of property rights. So once again, it was a concept of liberalism to them. I am not saying you have to agree with it, but it was viewed by that at the time. "WW1 - you are aware that it was old fashioned Empires" “At the time, political power in Germany derived from the King. In Britain, the King had an advisory role. “ - True, but considering Britain was still a traditional empire with forced control over colonies, I doubt you could realistically call that liberal. Especially by the very logic you used to disprove the south. “France was a republic.” - Only in name really. It still operated as a traditional empire. Yes, you could argue it was less centralized, which was great. But that didn’t change its rhetoric especially in international affairs. “The United States was a republic.” - We only joined at the tail end of the war. So I would not associate the heavy lifting to the USA. Not to mention, Wilson was far from a freedom loving guy, just saying. “Russia was conservative until the communists got power, but they also got completely destroyed by Germany, so saying they won would be insane.” - That we can agree.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 " I wouldn’t say that it is automatically rare." “Neither would I. Nor did I. I said it is rare, which is true. As you evidently agree.” - I agree with it being rare, but that is also dependent on what standard you hold them to. "Liberalism definition" Free markets? Check.” - High degree of tariffs and regulations is not promoting a free market. At least not by a classical liberal standard. “Equality under the law? Check.” - Somewhat, depends on timeframe. “Economic and political freedom (of individuals under the law)? Check. So... that's Lincoln fitting your definition. So you can't give a definition of liberalism that doesn't fit Lincoln.” - Did you seriously ignore all the points where Lincoln directly violated these individual freedoms? Forced conscription and suspending the protections of publishing anti war media is not promoting individual freedoms bud. " was consider part of the liberties of property rights." Not by liberals, only by conservatives. That's basically my point.” - Um no, by liberal conservatives. As mentioned the south did believe that they were operating as classical liberals against what they perceived as a overmore overreaching government. Were they correct? That is a matter of perspective. Were they hypocritical? You bet your ass they were. But that is the point. The standards were vastly different. "but it was viewed by that at the time. " “No, it wasn't viewed as liberalism at the time.” - Yes it was. As mentioned through classical liberalism’s definition. Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom. Free Markets and laiseez- faire economics? Check. Civil liberties under rule of law? Mainly pertaining to the property rights? Check. Limited government? - Check, considering the south was pushing for a less centralized government than the Union, at least in theory. Economic freedom? - Check. Political freedom? - Check. Now as I mentioned, the south were hypocritical on most if not all these points. The difference between them and Lincoln in that context is that Lincoln never claimed to be a liberal. Even by his own words, he admits that the Republicans at least in a broad pov was conservative in value. “"The chief and real purpose of the Republican Party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change ... than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to." Now as I mentioned, Lincoln’s standard of conservatism was very different from the southern standard. Where you see a concept of Northern Liberalism vs Southern Conservatism, I see as two competing concepts of American Nationhood rooted in a mixture of both conservative and liberal values for both sides. "Britain was still a traditional empire" A traditional empire was a authoritarian monarchy, which Britain was not at the time.” - It was a constitutional monarchy which still exercised imperial power with having colonies that made up almost a third of the world. "I doubt you could realistically call that liberal." I didn't say WW1 was won by liberal utopias, I said the liberal (comparative) side won. Britain had some illiberal policies, but was more liberal than Germany.” - Comparative, is not what you claimed when responding to his other comment. And comparatively means squat. That is like saying that democracy won the Eastern front just because the Soviet Union might have been slightly more democratic than the Third Reich. See the problem with that line of thinking? "It still operated as a traditional empire. " “Objectively wrong. France wasn't even a monarchy, so it's a nonsense to call them an empire. An empire is not merely a country with imperial policies. You understand that, right?” - Imperial structures does not automatically require the existence of a monarchy. Monarchies yes, are typically associated with Empires, but it does not require it to be considered an Empire or at the very least an Imperialist state.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 “That's is, objectively, an insane thing to say. To the extent that I expect it to be retracted if this conversation is to continue.” - You will expect nothing. And yes it is irrelevant in the context of WW1. Trying to compare two Empires and say one is slightly less imperialistic than the other does not change the fact that the war was started to conserve their imperial influences and power base. Nothing about that is liberal. Now if you want to make that statements on ideologies that are more specific such as Marxism vs National Socialism, or Confederation or Republic, then go for it. But to base your entire argument of “liberalism winning WW1 '' on the idea that Britain and France were only slightly less centralized in power than Germany at the time of WW1 is frankly laughable and revisionist crap. “I'll respond to the rest, but address this first or don't bother at all.” - Just did. "High degree of tariffs and regulations is not promoting a free market." “American liberalism of the time saw tariffs as necessary for state funding. They also viewed 'free market' as being a interstate, not international, concern.” - No evidence to back that claim sir. Even modern conservatives to this day largely support Tariffs and the modern liberals oppose that, but even in a historical context. The party to support tariffs before the Republicans were the Federalists. The advocates of increased federal power, I doubt you can say the federalists were liberal. "Lincoln directly violated these individual freedoms?" “Liberalism is respect for individual freedoms UNDER THE LAW. Which Lincoln did not violate.” - The northern citizens he suppressed on anti war were under the law. Did not change what he did. Unless of course your logic is that it was legal, therefore it makes it liberal. You know like Slavery was. I don’t think I need to explain further on the holes of that logic. “No. Sorry, you're simply wrong. There is no conception of liberalism, alone or in combination with any other ideology, that views slavery as acceptable. None.” - Again, only if you view it in a modern sense. Not classical liberalism. Now yes, I will admit that the concept of accepting slavery while preaching freedom is hypocritical. That isn’t the point though, what is was that the south absolutely viewed it as their individual rights to keep slavery around. A promotion of individual freedom. They viewed it as liberal, if you equate the concept to freedom. "the south did believe that they were operating as classical liberals " “They 100% did not. They loudly proclaimed themselves as conservatives.” - Which is not the opposite of liberalism and the two are not mutually exclusive! We have been over this already. “So if Lincoln called himself a conservative and acted as a liberal,” - He didn’t act as a liberal. Your logic is freeing the slaves automatically makes him a liberal when it doesn’t!! As mentioned he had more liberal stances in some issues but more conservative stances in others. Same went for the south at least by their own logic and reasoning. “and the South called themselves conservatives and acted as conservatives, I'm inclined to call Lincoln a liberal politician,” - You’re inclined to call nothing. I am sorry, I don’t think you reserve the right to declare Lincoln as something he clearly was not even by his own statements. Once again, protectionist policies flies in the face of free markets, arrest of people who make anti war press flies in the face of individual liberties, and his racist outlooks that he had for much of his career flies in the face of equality. Like I said, I am not suggesting Lincoln couldn’t have changed his mind on issues later on. And I am sure he did for the Blacks as the war hardened him. “and the South conservative. Because actions matter more than statements.” - And as mentioned his actions have still proven counter. If Lincoln was a liberal, he sure as hell was a hypocritical one. And mind you even agreeing that actions matter more, that does not mean the words should not be accounted for. Especially when no actions contradict it. “ In which the monarch essentially had no actual power. Unlike the Germans, where the monarch had significant power.” - True, but you would find even that changed during the war. And the policies were still rather comparable to one another. And the British Empire had the parliament since 1688. And gave reforms to promote the middle class into voting in 1833. Barely shorter timeframe than the Americans having slavery legal. And I doubt the form of government that had remained mostly consistent for a period of 81 years could be called liberal if you were basing the concept on change. "Imperial structures does not automatically require the existence of a monarchy. " “I'll take this as a demonstration that you don't know the difference between 'imperial' and 'empire'. An empire is necessarily a monarchy. By definition.” - German Third Reich. Reich was German for Empire and the Nazis did not have a monarch in any way shape or form. Empires typically had monarchies but it was not required to fit the rest of its definition. Which called upon an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority. “A non-monarchal political structure could engage in imperial actions, but could NEVER be an empire.” - Tell that to Hitler.
1
@looneyburgmusic not even slightly, some positions switched. But there’s a difference between some ideological changes vs complete different values
1
@looneyburgmusic supporting monuments? Bud most individuals who support the monuments staying aren’t some closet Confederates like your media portrays, most oppose it for two reasons. 1. Because it is trying to erase the history of those events and what made it up. And 2. Because trying to rid one self of every aspect of history they dislike is a slippery slope. What stops people from trying to do the same to Washington or Jefferson? Their reasons for wanting it removed have always been relatively weak. Supporting historical statues =/= supporting the CSA Rebellion. Get that garbage out of your head.
1
@looneyburgmusic "1. Because it is trying to erase the history of those events and what made it up." - Bullshit." It really isn't. It is erasing reminders of the events and what occurred in them. Especially when as many of the Dems now do are trying to advocate their total destruction. "You don't need monuments to defeated traitors who tried to destroy this nation and whom killed brave American Patriots to remember "history" - that's what these wonderful things called "History Books" are for." - I never said it was automatically needed, but its existence does enhance its study and reminder of said history, also to note that many of the Confederate people the statues were built for already had a long standing career in the Union prior. Are we to disregard the work they did for the Union over siding with a secession? "Also Bullshit. Washington or Jefferson were not traitors to the United States, were they? So only other traitors to the United States would want to 'erase' those individuals, and would be stopped, just as the "Confederate" traitors were stopped, in the War of the Southern Rebellion." - Here is the thing, legally speaking the southern generals are still regarded as American vets. As don't forget even Lincoln himself pardoned them, there were many reasons for this, but one in particular in the context of the time was secession was not technically illegal yet. Now this changed in 1869 with Texas v White. But until then, there was no concrete legal document stating secession to be illegal within the bounds of the US constitution. That does not make what the south did right, but it does put into perspective that the south did not just view their departure as "Screw America." It was viewed in the context that they believed the Federal government was violating their individual rights and liberties, including state powers that were stated in the constitution. Now yes, most of these stances were done to preserve slavery and the south was more than willing to flip flop positions when it suited them. But in the context of what was viewed at the time, Lincoln did not consider the south to be some enemy nation. Of course what you are ignoring is many of the people who want to take down CSA statues are the same people who want to do so for Washington, Jefferson, etc. And I will mention as well, who gets to decide whether the statues gets removed, who should hold that decision? And where should the statues go? That is important to note as well. The thing is the Civil War was part of American history and I personally would rather see as much of that history preserved for people to see how far we came as a country since then and so that it is easy to learn from.
1
@looneyburgmusic “How? Or, build a museum.” - Agreeable, let me know when the people wanting to take the statue removed do that, also as mentioned, who gets to decide that? "Are we to disregard the work they did for the Union over siding with treason against the United States?" - There, fixed that typo for you. Also, yes. Traitors lose all rights to be remembered for anything. - You fixed nothing, call it treason all you want, By that logic so are we, or are we going to forget the US very existence was formed on treason to the British crown. And not according to the US recognition they did. “NO. THEY. ARE. NOT.”- Yes there are. US Public Law 85-425, Section 410 gave Confederate Veterans the same legal status as US veterans in terms of pension rights. That story, that Congress made traitor confederates "US Veterans" is a lie. - Read above. “In order to be "pardoned" you must first admit your guilt in the crime you are being offered a pardon for. And a pardon only removes the legal PUNISHMENT, not factual GUILT.” - Once again secession at the time had a gray area that existed, while no legal document said they could do it, nothing said they couldn’t either. “In other words, by accepting a pardon, those "confederates" were admitting to Treason Against the United States.” - Once again only if you equite a secession to treason. But as mentioned before, there was no legal binding document that stated secession was illegal at the time of the Civil War. “Yes, it was. Under the Constitution, which specifically reserves to CONGRESS the power and authority to determine what is, and is not, a "State". - Determining what is and isn’t a state does equate to whether or not a state could legally leave the Union. What it was saying was only Congress had the power to control the entry of new states, not whether current ones could leave. "...they believed the Federal government was violating their individual rights and liberties" - “Too bad.” - And they would just as easily say the same to you. And you're missing the point, the constitution does mention that if the government becomes a tyrannical power violating the individual liberties of its people that the states and people could abolish it. “The Federal Constitution is supreme. Again, tough shit on those traitors.” - 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. As far as the south was concerned the Federal Government was violating a state’s constitutional rights to its self determination. Now, I don’t agree with this given that many of their actions were done before the North enacted anything that could violate it. But it is easy to see at the time why they would think this. “Irrelevant. The South itself DID consider itself to be a "separate" nation.” - Only according to you, but guess what it is factually relevant considering that was the primary reason the north did not work to punish the south post war, nor that it committed many major atrocities against the south during the war if avoidable. Its treatment was very much treated as an internal conflict between American countrymen, as such the south was subject to the same rights in war that the northern soldiers were given. You don’t get to deny that just because it suits your agenda. "Of course what you are ignoring is many of the people who want to take down CSA statues are the same people who want to do so for Washington, Jefferson, etc. " - “Such as? Examples?” - Says the one who didn’t even know of the implications of Texas v White or Public Law 85-425. And it is pretty easy to google examples happening rn, I would send you links but Youtube would automatically delete it, apparently they hate people using links. “Of "Confederate" traitors? How about the nearest junk-yard?” - You are only proving my point. The extremes you are having to dismantle that history is why people are fighting against it. “It's already been preserved - in history books.” - History books are not the same as settings and monuments. I don’t even think I have to explain this to you. Reading a book is not the same as being in location and viewing the monuments that occurred alongside it. “Also, if that was the point, where are all the monuments in the South to the victorious and righteous Union Patriots, who put down the traitors and their rebellion?” - Many were never built in the south in the first place, or did you forget that they were initially bitter post war. The thing is I agree that having both sides be accounted for in things such as monuments would go a long way. Perhaps have a statue of the major generals of both sides of a particular battle. That would definitely help bring a more neutral feeling to things, but of course I wouldn’t be surprised if people like you found a way to complain anyways.
1